Comment by tptacek
What you're doing here is establishing yourself as someone who believes a weirdly, ahistorically, spectacularly surgical attack on Hezbollah fighters is a "war crime". Which is fine, but people are going to point that out when you call other things a war crime, and you might care about that, because in those other instances you might actually be right (if it's Israel you're talking about, it's very likely you will be right), and the extra credibility might be helpful.
What I'm saying is that you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
If the Geneva Conventions (among other agreements) which you're so determined to ignore didn't exist, then you may have been right.
But, they do, and you're wrong.
You're also moving goalposts. Are you still standing by your statement that war has no rules/morality?
> you're setting yourself up to be dismissed as someone who believes "a war crime is when Israel does war".
Israel set themselves up for that belief, not me.
By doing war crimes. A lot of them. Like this one.
Consider, if you would, that this effort to move the Overton Window on what constitutes war crimes is severely misguided. And you really ought to stop.