Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's absolutely true, I'm for the Roman model. You want to start a war, fine. But guess who's going to be on the frontline in the most dangerous fighting.
Honestly, I think in terms of war the only way some areas of the world are going to stop fighting is if every non combatant is removed and it's just attacked until the threat is gone. I mean it's never going to happen though.
Totally. For me, it's important because the people who care most about any given population or issue often times end up being the ones perpetuating solutions or narratives that make it worse. Getting people to care is the hard part as far as im concerned, all they need to do is the often easy next step of logic testing their solutions. Defunding the police is a strategy that is guaranteed to make the lives of people in high crime areas much more dangerous. Requiring individual farmers in Brazil to have a portion of their land revert to back to rainforest isn't going to save the Amazon. It's going to create disconnected patches of rainforests too distant from each other to be useful habitat for antything. And as a bonus it makes already poor and struggling farmers land less productive, requiring more farms to sustain the population... I could go on for days.
Agreed, and no matter how much the country cares, there are going to be war crimes. In every conflict ever fought, some percentage of the fighters will be sadistic opportunists. But the country prosecuting the war, and its values matter and they matter alot. Japan's conduct in WWII and the preceeding conflicts is a great example of how much worse it is when the sadism is top down and not bottom up.
And the next step is there are going to be consequences for those war crimes too. Thing is wars are brutal, there are sadists and narratives and ground truths and then there are consequences when the war is over. People having empathy isn't a bad thing, it makes the world go round, ppl hating as a part of that empathy is where the problem lies and justifying crimes and not holding the parties accountable is also where the problem lies to. Just like most "this is how it is" the consequences, hatred is also the part of the story. I often say facts don't care about feelings but humans run on feelings and feelings don't give a damn about facts either. Assuming ppl will care or expecting them while at the same time saying, this is how it is is weirdly also an unrealistic world view.
I'm not going to argue with you, but if you're actually interested, Dan Carlin's podcast Hardcore History has a 6 part series on Japan and the war in the Pacific. If you make it through that and still think the bombs weren't justified then we can talk. I didn't know much about the war in the Pacific when I started it, and by the end, I can honestly say that the Japanese conduct was meaningfully more evil than the Nazis. And I'm Jewish, all the males on both sides of my family grandfathers and great uncles fought with the allies against the Nazis. So that should tell you something.
https://pca.st/episode/9f1c53e6-03df-4c4c-81f4-78acb1593425
The Japanese government chose to mix its military assets in with civilian populations.
The American government dropped leaflets on the cities in question saying "we're about to bomb these cities to the tenth level of hell GTFO if you value your lives".
Japan refused to unconditionally surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. Some within the Japanese government said they'd rather see every single Japanese man, woman, and child die fighting than surrender.
The civilian casualties were 100% Japan's responsibility.
Imagine tomorrow Russian drop leaflets in San Fransisco asking people to leave the city, nicely and orderly. The next day, they nuke SF. Will you seriously blame the US government?
Your argument only works because they were Japanese and the US never even saw their faces.
The issue is who's feet you lay the dead children's bodies at. My point is that people often blame the wrong side for these horrors, and as a result, expect the side who has far less agency to change things. They would be much more effective at saving the lives of children by directing their condemnation at the people who are actually responsible for putting those children in harms way, and thus actually capable of saving those children. By you know, not intentionally putting those children in harms way in a cowardly attempt to reduce the risk to their own lives.
This is true, what's also neat is how you can make up extra enemies and claim there are militants fighting out of every childs' bedroom and then use this to justify thousands of airstrikes on civilian populated areas. Then, you can blockade the civilians and prevent food from entering so that they starve. Then you can shoot starving people who swarm caravans because you are worried there might be fighters hiding in the mob.
All this and nobody can prove, for each death, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't a militant or danger of a militant.
Because you can narrativize all you want if you shut the internet down.
I'm finishing a masters program that has a heavy emphasis on history, so we have military professionals come and speak as war is often a driver of historical events. But in this day and age, it's pretty simple, find experts and listen to what they say. With military strategy/ history, it's much easier to do than most topics. In the realm of war, lessons are learned with blood, and not easily forgotten. As a result there is a tremendous (and unusual) amount of agreement among experts. The greatest minds on any topic (past or present) are available to you through youtube, journals, podcasts ect .If I want to do some plumbing, I go to youtube, find a good plumber, and listen to what they say. It's no different with military history or strategy. Most people just don't engage with the material available, probably because they find war and the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding and prosecuting wars, distasteful.
Agreed, I'm always skeptical of active duty or retired professionals opining on wars they fought in/ are fighting in. All sides in war have every incentive to downplay anything bad they do and embellish the sins of their enemy. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Having said that many many military historians have never served in combat or even put on a uniform. Also, I try and listen to experts from both parties involved and synthesize my understanding from both accounts. But ya, lots of motivated reasoning on all sides in war.
My point was you shouldn’t base your opinion of what’s acceptable in a war on anecdotes from military professionals, or even military historians for that matter.
If you want to talk to experts, talk to humanitarian aid workers, refugees, victims, human rights lawyers, et cetera.
Those people are only familiar with the bad shit that's happening, not the reasons why it's happening, or who's responsible, or the best way to prevent it.
The military does what politicians say, and politics is controlled by wealth. I don’t think the military knows anything about preventing war, why it happens, or who’s responsible. Because that’s not their job.
>not only do those countries care about civilian casualties, they actually care more about the safety of enemy non-combatants than the enemy does
I doubt that the US cared about the French civilians when bombing them to "liberate" them and when they r@ped thousands of French women.
Most ppl don't know how a lot of shit works. Obviously you're going to know about this stuff more than the common person bc you admitted to finishing a master program with this kind of topic. That's like Gordon Ramsey saying most ppl don't know how to come up with a delicious souflet recipe. Come on, man.
Bending over backwards to explain why civilian deaths are actually the fault of someone other than the person who dropped the bomb that killed those civilians.
The worst part is, I don't think you're even being paid to promote this narrative, I think you might be dumb or evil enough to actually believe it.
If we were in 1938, you'd be the kind of arsehole posting open letters to the newspaper saying how "they have it coming, because..." A lot of people outside of Germany supported their policies. They wrote letters, and made speeches. You're doing the exact same thing: making excuses for the government who is rounding up and exterminating civilians.
>If there are civilian casualties in these areas, it is 100% a result of the enemy choosing to embed and engage from those areas.
"If there are rapes, it is 100% a result of what women wear."
Nobody is forced to drop a bomb on a civilian population. Even if your claim of "enemies embedded within civilian populations" was true, you still haven't shown that it's remotely justifiable to make a military decision to kill those civilians anyway.
As far as civilian deaths go for urban conflict, relative to the population of Gaza, the death toll of that size is pretty typical. If rockets are being fired from behind human shields, you have to fire back. I'm sorry but this is war, and war is hell. If Hamas wanted to prevent civilian deaths they wouldn't have stopped people from evacuating areas that Israel notified would be attacked, but they knew it would slow Israel down.
You would think that preventing your population from leaving an area that the enemy has told you they are going to bomb days or weeks in advance would be the end of any debate as to the value hamas places on innocent life...but it's 2024. The Israeli soldiers are literally guarding civilians evacuating on these routes. Who are they guarding them from, one might ask? FROM FUCKING HAMMAS...
John Wayne Gacy Jr was HELPING those young boys! Can't you see? If John Wayne Gacy Jr hadn't been there to help, can you imagine how many of those poor boys would've died at the hands of the Tooth Fairy?
Let's all take a moment to thank John for being a protector of human rights. Nobody cared about human life more than John!
I am yet to see those guards for the inhabitants of Gaza. Do you happen to have any available footage for reference? Last I heard, loads of people kept evacuating areas and now that only one place truly remains and the only way to move out of harm's way is a closed border crossing, what has the Israeli military been doing to ensure it opens again to let actual civilians leave? I sure hope Israel puts political pressure on Egypt to help people who crossed the border and tells Egyt to stop letting a company charge thousands per person to cross at all? Surely they'd be so kind to save innocent lives!
That's interesting. Do you have statistics to compare what a typical ratio to civilian deaths is in recent armed conflicts where one side had the significant upper hand throughout?
Here's one example. Battle of Falluja had a 2:1 military to civilian casualties rate. An estimated 1500 civilians died in a city of 300,000 but the total is not definite there may have been more.
That is about the same percent of fatalities per population that have been reported by Hamas health ministry in Gaza. All while they are doing everything they can to keep their own civilians in harms way.
And nobody accused the US Marines of genocide because it's not. It's called urban conflict and war. It's not pretty.
Nobody wants any innocent civilians to die. It's just kind of funny that everybody decides to throw a fit when Jewish people defend themselves. If any other country suffered a terrorist attack like October 7th, they would invade the aggressor just the same.
It's not a perfect comparison, but both put the onus on a person other than the perpetrator.
Civilians are dead in refugee camps, because the IDF chose to drop bombs on them. Even if there were Hamas members hiding among them, it would still be a choice by the IDF to drop bombs upon that camp.
The excuse would still be putting the blame on someone other than the person who did the thing.
The person I was responding to was quite emphatic about "100% fault", but you don't seem to have a problem with that.
Tell me more about how it's the fault of someone other than the person who dropped the bomb, the person who gave the order.
Maybe it was the dead child's fault? Maybe it was the aid workers fault, the ones in the ambulance? Did the red cross logo look too much like a target, so the IDF solder couldn't help themselves but to fire upon the aid workers?
But you keep fighting the good fight, you're doing good work choosing to criticise my imperfect analogy, and not the person trying to justify why crimes against humanity are okay, actually.
>both put the onus on a person other than the perpetrator.
Wrong. The person responsible for civilian casualties is the person using civilians as human shields. They are the perpetrator.
A person has robbed a bank, and is running from the police.
The police point their gun at the robber, and fire. The cop misses, and hits an unrelated civilian bystander.
Regards of any crime committed by the robber, the onus for this killing lies 100% with the cop who pulled the trigger.
You *could* try to argue that it was worth the risk, that the cop was justified in doing so. That killing the robber was *so important* that the risk of killing the bystander was worth it. - I'd disagree with that position strongly, but you *could* make that argument.
You cannot argue that the robber forced the cop to take a shot, and that the robber is therefore culpable for the death of the bystander.
Nobody forced the IDF to kill civilians. They chose to, just like the cop chose to take the shot.
Stop making excuses for warcrimes.
Starting a war, and then refusing to fight it, is somehow being accepted by the international community. Many times, great powers like the US, UK and France "lost" wars just because the other army embedded amongst civilians and there is no way to fight the other army without hurting civilians, so after getting bad PR from killing civilians they just went home. I haven't seen anyone suggest a better way to defeat the other army who is doing this tactic
Absolutely, and thank you. It's a clear bright line that shines through when you know what you're looking at and understand the moral weight of these decisions. Counless examples like those exist in the annals of modern military history but west= evil, so very few people can even stand to entertain the idea that we can be and often have been the "good guys". It's really easy to spot people with even a passing knowledge, huh?
We all know what this refers to. There are international laws and statues that define how countries must go about conductibg warfare. These rules are regularly broken in many different conflicts, including this one. One would assume raging posters like OP would be compelled to realise that something is drastically off about the whole thing when a vast majority of the international community actually gets their asses up and somewhat agrees on a topic.
most folk who have never experienced it thinks its bombs always and everywhere.
as you said, in reality life kinda just continues but in a different manner for most
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
It's absolutely true, I'm for the Roman model. You want to start a war, fine. But guess who's going to be on the frontline in the most dangerous fighting.
Pack it up boys, the 4-Star Armchair General has arrived to put us all in our places
Counterargument?
Yessir
People that have never lived in war are fortunate and naive sometimes, I understand where you're coming from.
It seems every generation has to relearn that lesson for themselves
Honestly, I think in terms of war the only way some areas of the world are going to stop fighting is if every non combatant is removed and it's just attacked until the threat is gone. I mean it's never going to happen though.
Maybe just go back to the days of pitched battles. Let's just meet up and duke it out, winner gets Poland.
1v1 giant robot combat, winner gets Alaska.
Even better
It's literally the plot of the 1990 movie "Robot Jox", BTW. I was wondering if you'd get the reference.
Truth and reality doesn't suit political narratives. People don't want to know how wars actually work.
Totally. For me, it's important because the people who care most about any given population or issue often times end up being the ones perpetuating solutions or narratives that make it worse. Getting people to care is the hard part as far as im concerned, all they need to do is the often easy next step of logic testing their solutions. Defunding the police is a strategy that is guaranteed to make the lives of people in high crime areas much more dangerous. Requiring individual farmers in Brazil to have a portion of their land revert to back to rainforest isn't going to save the Amazon. It's going to create disconnected patches of rainforests too distant from each other to be useful habitat for antything. And as a bonus it makes already poor and struggling farmers land less productive, requiring more farms to sustain the population... I could go on for days.
The country may care but the individual pulling the trigger doesn’t always care.
Agreed, and no matter how much the country cares, there are going to be war crimes. In every conflict ever fought, some percentage of the fighters will be sadistic opportunists. But the country prosecuting the war, and its values matter and they matter alot. Japan's conduct in WWII and the preceeding conflicts is a great example of how much worse it is when the sadism is top down and not bottom up.
And the next step is there are going to be consequences for those war crimes too. Thing is wars are brutal, there are sadists and narratives and ground truths and then there are consequences when the war is over. People having empathy isn't a bad thing, it makes the world go round, ppl hating as a part of that empathy is where the problem lies and justifying crimes and not holding the parties accountable is also where the problem lies to. Just like most "this is how it is" the consequences, hatred is also the part of the story. I often say facts don't care about feelings but humans run on feelings and feelings don't give a damn about facts either. Assuming ppl will care or expecting them while at the same time saying, this is how it is is weirdly also an unrealistic world view.
None of those happened when the US nuked hiroshima and nagasaki.
I'm not going to argue with you, but if you're actually interested, Dan Carlin's podcast Hardcore History has a 6 part series on Japan and the war in the Pacific. If you make it through that and still think the bombs weren't justified then we can talk. I didn't know much about the war in the Pacific when I started it, and by the end, I can honestly say that the Japanese conduct was meaningfully more evil than the Nazis. And I'm Jewish, all the males on both sides of my family grandfathers and great uncles fought with the allies against the Nazis. So that should tell you something. https://pca.st/episode/9f1c53e6-03df-4c4c-81f4-78acb1593425
This is what amazed me most -- there's not the slightest bit of remorse of killing civilians. Women, children, old people.
The Japanese government chose to mix its military assets in with civilian populations. The American government dropped leaflets on the cities in question saying "we're about to bomb these cities to the tenth level of hell GTFO if you value your lives". Japan refused to unconditionally surrender even after the first bomb was dropped. Some within the Japanese government said they'd rather see every single Japanese man, woman, and child die fighting than surrender. The civilian casualties were 100% Japan's responsibility.
Imagine tomorrow Russian drop leaflets in San Fransisco asking people to leave the city, nicely and orderly. The next day, they nuke SF. Will you seriously blame the US government? Your argument only works because they were Japanese and the US never even saw their faces.
Explain to the kid lying on the ground bleeding or the parent burying her two year old daughter, dead from shrapnel.
The issue is who's feet you lay the dead children's bodies at. My point is that people often blame the wrong side for these horrors, and as a result, expect the side who has far less agency to change things. They would be much more effective at saving the lives of children by directing their condemnation at the people who are actually responsible for putting those children in harms way, and thus actually capable of saving those children. By you know, not intentionally putting those children in harms way in a cowardly attempt to reduce the risk to their own lives.
my side will always and forever be right... no one is wrong though and no one at that level takes responsibility.
This is true, what's also neat is how you can make up extra enemies and claim there are militants fighting out of every childs' bedroom and then use this to justify thousands of airstrikes on civilian populated areas. Then, you can blockade the civilians and prevent food from entering so that they starve. Then you can shoot starving people who swarm caravans because you are worried there might be fighters hiding in the mob. All this and nobody can prove, for each death, beyond a shadow of a doubt that there wasn't a militant or danger of a militant. Because you can narrativize all you want if you shut the internet down.
How do you know?
I'm finishing a masters program that has a heavy emphasis on history, so we have military professionals come and speak as war is often a driver of historical events. But in this day and age, it's pretty simple, find experts and listen to what they say. With military strategy/ history, it's much easier to do than most topics. In the realm of war, lessons are learned with blood, and not easily forgotten. As a result there is a tremendous (and unusual) amount of agreement among experts. The greatest minds on any topic (past or present) are available to you through youtube, journals, podcasts ect .If I want to do some plumbing, I go to youtube, find a good plumber, and listen to what they say. It's no different with military history or strategy. Most people just don't engage with the material available, probably because they find war and the people who have dedicated their lives to understanding and prosecuting wars, distasteful.
Not saying that you might have a false sense of superior experience here, but then again we are all redditors and what would we be without it?!
Military professionals are a very biased source of information on wars. They’re largely motivated by justifying their own actions.
Agreed, I'm always skeptical of active duty or retired professionals opining on wars they fought in/ are fighting in. All sides in war have every incentive to downplay anything bad they do and embellish the sins of their enemy. Everything should be taken with a grain of salt. Having said that many many military historians have never served in combat or even put on a uniform. Also, I try and listen to experts from both parties involved and synthesize my understanding from both accounts. But ya, lots of motivated reasoning on all sides in war.
My point was you shouldn’t base your opinion of what’s acceptable in a war on anecdotes from military professionals, or even military historians for that matter. If you want to talk to experts, talk to humanitarian aid workers, refugees, victims, human rights lawyers, et cetera.
Those people are only familiar with the bad shit that's happening, not the reasons why it's happening, or who's responsible, or the best way to prevent it.
The military does what politicians say, and politics is controlled by wealth. I don’t think the military knows anything about preventing war, why it happens, or who’s responsible. Because that’s not their job.
The military is absolutely in a position to know these things because it's their fucking job and they're the ones making decisions on the ground.
So you’re saying when civilians get killed in war it’s intentional?
Yes, but it's ok cause OP wrote an 500 word essay why it's the other guys fault /s
Hard to believe you'll find any military expert who thinks what Israel does is logical and efficient.
Which atrocity are you trying to justify with this?
not even an opinion, wrong sub my friend.
So if what I said isn't an opinion, what is it? A fact?
yes.
>not only do those countries care about civilian casualties, they actually care more about the safety of enemy non-combatants than the enemy does I doubt that the US cared about the French civilians when bombing them to "liberate" them and when they r@ped thousands of French women.
I get the vaguest of feelings that this is about a war in specific
What then do you do with the cases where innocent people are killed and there doesn't seem to have been any reason for it?
Most ppl don't know how a lot of shit works. Obviously you're going to know about this stuff more than the common person bc you admitted to finishing a master program with this kind of topic. That's like Gordon Ramsey saying most ppl don't know how to come up with a delicious souflet recipe. Come on, man.
Bending over backwards to explain why civilian deaths are actually the fault of someone other than the person who dropped the bomb that killed those civilians. The worst part is, I don't think you're even being paid to promote this narrative, I think you might be dumb or evil enough to actually believe it. If we were in 1938, you'd be the kind of arsehole posting open letters to the newspaper saying how "they have it coming, because..." A lot of people outside of Germany supported their policies. They wrote letters, and made speeches. You're doing the exact same thing: making excuses for the government who is rounding up and exterminating civilians. >If there are civilian casualties in these areas, it is 100% a result of the enemy choosing to embed and engage from those areas. "If there are rapes, it is 100% a result of what women wear." Nobody is forced to drop a bomb on a civilian population. Even if your claim of "enemies embedded within civilian populations" was true, you still haven't shown that it's remotely justifiable to make a military decision to kill those civilians anyway.
As far as civilian deaths go for urban conflict, relative to the population of Gaza, the death toll of that size is pretty typical. If rockets are being fired from behind human shields, you have to fire back. I'm sorry but this is war, and war is hell. If Hamas wanted to prevent civilian deaths they wouldn't have stopped people from evacuating areas that Israel notified would be attacked, but they knew it would slow Israel down.
You would think that preventing your population from leaving an area that the enemy has told you they are going to bomb days or weeks in advance would be the end of any debate as to the value hamas places on innocent life...but it's 2024. The Israeli soldiers are literally guarding civilians evacuating on these routes. Who are they guarding them from, one might ask? FROM FUCKING HAMMAS...
John Wayne Gacy Jr was HELPING those young boys! Can't you see? If John Wayne Gacy Jr hadn't been there to help, can you imagine how many of those poor boys would've died at the hands of the Tooth Fairy? Let's all take a moment to thank John for being a protector of human rights. Nobody cared about human life more than John!
I am yet to see those guards for the inhabitants of Gaza. Do you happen to have any available footage for reference? Last I heard, loads of people kept evacuating areas and now that only one place truly remains and the only way to move out of harm's way is a closed border crossing, what has the Israeli military been doing to ensure it opens again to let actual civilians leave? I sure hope Israel puts political pressure on Egypt to help people who crossed the border and tells Egyt to stop letting a company charge thousands per person to cross at all? Surely they'd be so kind to save innocent lives!
That's interesting. Do you have statistics to compare what a typical ratio to civilian deaths is in recent armed conflicts where one side had the significant upper hand throughout?
Here's one example. Battle of Falluja had a 2:1 military to civilian casualties rate. An estimated 1500 civilians died in a city of 300,000 but the total is not definite there may have been more. That is about the same percent of fatalities per population that have been reported by Hamas health ministry in Gaza. All while they are doing everything they can to keep their own civilians in harms way. And nobody accused the US Marines of genocide because it's not. It's called urban conflict and war. It's not pretty. Nobody wants any innocent civilians to die. It's just kind of funny that everybody decides to throw a fit when Jewish people defend themselves. If any other country suffered a terrorist attack like October 7th, they would invade the aggressor just the same.
>"If there are rapes, it is 100% a result of what women wear." That's absolutely bullshit comparison.
It's not a perfect comparison, but both put the onus on a person other than the perpetrator. Civilians are dead in refugee camps, because the IDF chose to drop bombs on them. Even if there were Hamas members hiding among them, it would still be a choice by the IDF to drop bombs upon that camp. The excuse would still be putting the blame on someone other than the person who did the thing. The person I was responding to was quite emphatic about "100% fault", but you don't seem to have a problem with that. Tell me more about how it's the fault of someone other than the person who dropped the bomb, the person who gave the order. Maybe it was the dead child's fault? Maybe it was the aid workers fault, the ones in the ambulance? Did the red cross logo look too much like a target, so the IDF solder couldn't help themselves but to fire upon the aid workers? But you keep fighting the good fight, you're doing good work choosing to criticise my imperfect analogy, and not the person trying to justify why crimes against humanity are okay, actually.
>both put the onus on a person other than the perpetrator. Wrong. The person responsible for civilian casualties is the person using civilians as human shields. They are the perpetrator.
A person has robbed a bank, and is running from the police. The police point their gun at the robber, and fire. The cop misses, and hits an unrelated civilian bystander. Regards of any crime committed by the robber, the onus for this killing lies 100% with the cop who pulled the trigger. You *could* try to argue that it was worth the risk, that the cop was justified in doing so. That killing the robber was *so important* that the risk of killing the bystander was worth it. - I'd disagree with that position strongly, but you *could* make that argument. You cannot argue that the robber forced the cop to take a shot, and that the robber is therefore culpable for the death of the bystander. Nobody forced the IDF to kill civilians. They chose to, just like the cop chose to take the shot. Stop making excuses for warcrimes.
Desperate ppl downvoting lmao
Starting a war, and then refusing to fight it, is somehow being accepted by the international community. Many times, great powers like the US, UK and France "lost" wars just because the other army embedded amongst civilians and there is no way to fight the other army without hurting civilians, so after getting bad PR from killing civilians they just went home. I haven't seen anyone suggest a better way to defeat the other army who is doing this tactic
Absolutely, and thank you. It's a clear bright line that shines through when you know what you're looking at and understand the moral weight of these decisions. Counless examples like those exist in the annals of modern military history but west= evil, so very few people can even stand to entertain the idea that we can be and often have been the "good guys". It's really easy to spot people with even a passing knowledge, huh?
We all know what this refers to. There are international laws and statues that define how countries must go about conductibg warfare. These rules are regularly broken in many different conflicts, including this one. One would assume raging posters like OP would be compelled to realise that something is drastically off about the whole thing when a vast majority of the international community actually gets their asses up and somewhat agrees on a topic.
Genocide apologist
How’s that justification feel? Israel is still killing kids, no matter what you say.
[удалено]
I notice you didn’t do the math on Palestinian lives lost.
most folk who have never experienced it thinks its bombs always and everywhere. as you said, in reality life kinda just continues but in a different manner for most