Just to be clear. You're arguing that if a country is attacked, it's ok to kill civilians that are unrelated to the attack? Or are you arguing that those 300,000 were somehow involved in the killing of the 3,000 Israelis that died in the Hamas attack?
If a country is attacked, and defends itself, are you saying it should stop any form of defense because a civilian can die?
If this is the logic, then what would prevent armies from using human shields?
How on earth did you get that from my comment? Can you think of a more charitable way to interpret what I said?
So you're not saying that what Israel is doing is less bad due to the fact that it was attacked? So what are you saying then?
I guess that no, I can't find a more charitable way to interpret what you said.
> Israel was actually attacked
I was responding to your claim that Iran was defending itself... Whether or not Israel responded disproportionately to October 7 (it did), I don't think it's fair to say Iran's actions are "self-defense" in the same way that Israel's war was self-defense.
Disproportionate would be if they caught the October 7 terrorists and their collaborators, and instead of arresting them killed them. If that was what happened, I wouldn't be morally against it.