News

You're using euphemisms to justify the exact same thing. Rationalizing the murder of civilians by bUt It'S a MilITary tArGeT doesn't change anything about the comparison whatsoever. It's still premeditated murder of innocent civilians chiefly comprised of women and children.

Known Civilians in vicinity --> Valuable Target in vicinity --> Bombs Dropped Anyway

Known Civilians shot --> Valuable target gets executed in exchange.

No substantive difference.

During times of war, civilians die.

You should be careful with this line of argumentation, as the logical conclusion you suggest does not bode well for your argument. Considering the Allies bombed 90+ Japanese civilian cities and nuked 2, not to mention Dresden in Germany -- directly targeting civilians and killing nearly a million -- then yes by the same standard what Hamas did on October 7th during a war between two factions could be seen as permissible and excusable just the same. Second to this, it basically excuses Israel from doing whatever it wants as a means to an end. If we entertain your argument here, then nuking Gaza would be on the table and completely reasonable. So, indeed, civilians die. What a wonderfully anti-civilian race-to-the-bottom position this is.

Finally, let's not victim-blame. The Palestinian civilians aren't in control of what Hamas does. Unlike Israel, who claims not to be a terrorist organization and has the supposed moral integrity to cease dropping of bombs. Though I do find it incredibly ironic that:

• Hamas support has only increased since Israell's disastrous overreactive response.
• Israeli global support has dropped
• Palestinian sympathy has risen.

... And just one last thing: tell me, by killing this many civilians, causing mass starvation, countless orphans and broken families all the while destroying the civilian infrastructure -- do you think that's going to increase or decrease radicalization in the coming decades? lol...