• shoo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 hours ago

    I don’t see how that makes a difference? Israel bombing civilians with precision doesn’t make imprecise bombing of civilians more acceptable. Everyone ends up just as dead. It just makes it more palatable for people who value retribution above civilian lives.

    To put it another way: if you want to hit a military target but can’t do so without outsized collateral damage, you don’t have ethical grounds to make the attack. You don’t see people defending the USA’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam just because it was the only feasible way to clear foliage.

    • arrow74@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      So what Iran is just supposed to let Israel continue unprovoked attacks? Yeah that’s a fucking stupid take.

      Also the US was the invader during the Vietnam War so that’s a bad example all around

      • shoo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        When did I say that? All I want is for all belligerents to be held to the same standard. Show me the evidence that these missiles are falling on targets with strategic importance; show me that they’re making efforts to not waste human lives. It’s clear that Israel’s attacks are not and they’re rightly called out for it. Why is Iran above the same scrutiny?

        US was the invader during the Vietnam War so that’s a bad example all around

        Why is it a bad example? Does being the defender in a war make you immune to war crimes? It’s indiscriminate killing of non combatants either way.