Comment by dragonwriter
Comment by dragonwriter 10 months ago
> 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.
> equivocating "targeted" with "killed".
Who's equivocating? 3000 combatants were targeted, 12 civilians were killed.
Where's the equivocation?
> 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".
Targeting enemy combatants does not in any way satisfy the criteria for "indiscriminate".
There was no "indiscriminate", there was no "mass casualties".