Terr_ 10 months ago

> Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians.

By that logic only the absolute number of (expected) civilian deaths matters... which can't be right.

If it were true, then exploding a city bus (1 soldier, 10 civilians) would be more moral than striking a military base (1,000 soldiers, 11 civilians.)

It would also suggest a kind of blame-shifting if one side decides to install their missile launchers in the playgrounds of elementary schools or whatever.

  • abalone 10 months ago

    You are simply incorrect. “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.

    But to your point, Israel’s ratio in Gaza was as high as 100 civilians to 1 soldier in the shopping mall (or more accurately, refugee family shelters).

    • Terr_ 10 months ago

      > “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.

      No, you've cut off the crucial second half of the sentence, which says a military operation with known risks of civilian deaths "is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians."

      The phrase "those civilians" refers to a countable quantity of them.

      Perhaps you meant to write "morally equivalent to targeting that proportion of civilians"?

      • beedeebeedee 10 months ago

        This isn't pedantry, but what are you arguing?

    • km3r 10 months ago

      [flagged]

      • abalone 10 months ago

        See my source which is based on reporting from inside Israel and the IDF.[1]

        [1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

        • km3r 10 months ago

          Lavender specifically calls out NCVs as high as 100 for high level commanders not soldiers, and NCVS aren't minimums they are maximums. Where is the actual case where 100 died for one soldier?