Comment by lm28469 3 days ago
> it would be justified, no?
It's never justified to trigger explosives when you have no idea where said explosives are.
What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ?
What if he's picking up his kids from school, visiting the local food market, &c.
What if he's driving and end up crashing in a bunch of people walking on the sidewalk
When you drop a bomb you at least know where it's going, here you have no idea.
Look at what's going on in Ukraine, if you can't tell a good from a bad shit you have to get your eyes checked. Hitting a column of tank isn't the same as targeting a civilian building
Wars are always bad and there will always be war crimes on all sides, it doesn't mean that everything is equal
> In WW2 20% of US bombs fell within 1000 feet of their target, which were often in densely populated areas. Its only modern technology that lets us know where its really going
Is this supposed to be a gotcha ?
WW2 is the reason we updated the Geneva conventions to protect civilians lol
Somebody shared videos: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1836041245996584983/vid... Looks like bystanders are fine.
> What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ?
Then they also die/get injured. Being in close contact with a terrorist is a dangerous pass-time, and armies targeting foreign threats need to accept some level of collateral damage. In this case, we have thousands of injured terrorists, with hundreds dead, and an additional fraction of those numbers being non-military targets (civilians). It's certainly unfortunate and unpleasant, but this is an excellent ratio.
That sounds nice, but by that logic no bomb would ever be fired. Under international law collateral damage must not be excessive, but it is permitted. If it was unacceptable, evil armies would do what they want and good armies would never fire a shot.