• Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    ~ 1/3 military kills is definitely not “indiscriminately killing”. These numbers change everything.

    It’s not a mass murder anymore. Oct7 was a justified targeted retaliation.

    • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      67% civilian casualties is a universally abhorrent figure, and shows a complete disregard for the value of innocent human lives.

      Also, mass murder is generally defined as the killing of 3 or more persons at a time. Not exactly a high bar.

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        67% civilian casualties is a universally abhorrent figure

        Is it? I mean civilians getting killed is bad no matter the number, and I’m not denying Hamas soldiers committed war crimes, but for example in Iraq the US coalition’s percentage was 77%.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Because everyone is so happy that Iraq happened? Here, fixed:

          77% civilian casualties is also a universally abhorrent figure

            • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              Ah, I see what you’re saying now. Unfortunately yes, 67% it isn’t particularly out of the ordinary. Perhaps I’m in a bit of a bubble, but I think/hope the vast majority of people consider this historical “normal” to be “abhorrent” these days. Such would be a positive change for society.

              Perhaps I should also clarify that by “universal”, I don’t mean “everyone agrees”, but rather “regardless of the circumstances”. I included this to suggest that I think the civilian casualty rate in Palestine is also abhorrent, and I don’t think the October 7 attacks justify it in the slightest.

              • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                Perhaps I’m in a bit of a bubble, but I think/hope the vast majority of people consider this historical “normal” to be “abhorrent” these days.

                That’s true. Normally I’d talk about not even close to all the civilian casualties are Hamas-inflicted, but mostly I wanted to point out that the popular Israeli narrative of “they entered our villages and indiscriminately killed our people in a brutal terrorist attack” is wrong even going by the 67% alone.

      • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        My man you better not start reading about American civilian casualty figures. And ESPECIALLY not about israel ones.

        Also most israeli civilians are IDF reservists so they are in fact uncounted soldiers. The IDF just called up 300.000 “innocent civilians” to commit genocide in Gaza? lmao.

        The best number is how little children were killed in compared to the total amount of people.

        • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          My man you better not start reading about American civilian casualty figures. And ESPECIALLY not about israel ones.

          Let me guess, I would find more universally abhorrent figures? What exactly do you think “universally” means?

          Also most israeli civilians are IDF reservists

          Where the fuck did you get that from?

            • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              I don’t follow your argument. So civilians that go through compulsory military service are not civilians? Korea, Vietnam, and Denmark have basically no civilian population? Or is it wartime conscription that you have a problem with? Is every American citizen an attack target because they theoretically could be conscripted as a response to the attack?

              • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                If they are IDF conscripts they’re not civilians. Don’t even dare to compare israeli colonists to Koreans.

                If people went into Hamas military service and become a “Hamas reservist” then you wouldn’t even doubt to call those people terrorists.

                There are actual israelis that rejected IDF service and even people that advocates for peace that were killed which is very sad. But the majority are military.

                • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  If they are IDF conscripts they’re not civilians. Don’t even dare to compare israeli colonists to Koreans.

                  Hah, why not? Their conscription system works the same way, if you haven’t noticed.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Justified retaliation, and an operation meant to get concessions out of Israel for Gazans. That’s why they took the hostages.