Comment by lelanthran
Comment by lelanthran 19 hours ago
> First let's acknowledge that at least 50% of those killed are civilians and many were also injured. That's a fact, you aren't debating that, right?
No, I'm specifically calling out your "50% of casualties were civilians" as pure and unadulterated nonsense.
> What is the criteria for the evidence to satisfy your doubts?
There is no way to spin this negatively: 3000 enemy combatants were targeted and 12 civilians were killed.
This must be the lowest percentage of civilian collateral in the history of warfare, and you're blithely trotting out '50% casualties' as a talking point.
I wanna see what percentage of collateral Hezbollah managed, because this is a war, you understand? Enemy action in war always has collateral, and I want to see what percentage you considered acceptable from Hezbollah.
> This must be the lowest percentage of civilian collateral in the history of warfare
It's not even close. And the only way it even seems like a reasonable ratio is equivocating "targeted" with "killed".
But attacks have had as low as 0% civilian collateral casualties, so even if it was 3000 combatants and 12 civilians killed, it wouldn't be the lowest percentage of civilian collateral in the history of warfare.
> I want to see what percentage you considered acceptable from Hezbollah.
War crimes on one side don't excuse war crimes on the other, and criticizing Israel for an indiscriminate attack does not imply accepting all, or even any, of Hezbollah's attacks as "acceptable". There is a good argument that at least one side must be wrong in war, there is no good argument that at least one side must be right.