10 ms·
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on su
by dw_arthur 3y ago
Two sources said that during the early weeks of the war they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes on low-ranking militants. Attacks on such targets were typically carried out using unguided munitions known as “dumb bombs”, the sources said, destroying entire homes and killing all their occupants.
The world should not forget this.
- prpl 3y agoSo the entire family and neighbors family. Sure would be convenient if Hamas is 6% of the population
- gryzzly 3y agoconvenient how, you mean?
- bregma 3y agoThe result would be plenty of fresh unoccupied land to settle on. Just a little bit of cleanup required.
- pelorat 3y ago40% or something voted for them, and pretty sure all of those are considered targets now.
- anigbrowl 3y agoI don't think basing your ROE on the results of an election that took place in 2006 is a valid approach.
- myth_drannon 3y agoSo why it didn't happen? 40000 operatives, x30 family members would mean the entire Gaza population is gone in a matter of weeks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dariosalvi78 3y agoDefinitely Palestinians are not going to forget this.
- tjpnz 3y agoI would extend that to the wider region.
- free-pale 3y ago[dead]
- supposemaybe 3y agoEm, I think you mean any reasonable minded human that walks the planet.
- flir 3y agoI think he means the cycle of violence will continue. Which is what I kinda assume Hamas wanted in the first place.
- koutetsu 3y agoCould you please clarify what you mean by "Hamas wanted in ghe first place"? If I'm not mistaken, you're referring to the attack on the 7th of October, right? May I perhaps add that just on the days preceding that attack, Israelis killed a Palestinian in the West Bank[0]. So it was not really peaceful before that specific date. [0] https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-killed-during-settler-assault-west-bank-town-palestinian-officials-2023-10-06/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/palestinian-killed...
- Workaccount2 3y agoThis is a dumb road to go down because the finger pointing is almost infinite. This conflict has been very active for decades now.
- raxxorraxor 3y ago[flagged]
- supposemaybe 3y ago[flagged]
- raxxorraxor 3y ago[flagged]
- talldayo 3y ago> I don't believe people starving is entirely or even majorly the responsibility of Israel. I wish I could agree, but foreign aid is being forced to leave Gaza as a result of the IDF's actions: https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/israel-strike-kills-7-gaza-famine-20240403.html https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/israel-strike-kil... > I don't see it as having overtaken the response towards an attack towards Israel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
- majikaja 3y ago>I don't believe people starving is entirely or even majorly the responsibility of Israel. Good luck with the neighbors
- mardifoufs 3y agoIt's funny because your exact logic can be used to justify the attacks you're talking about. Israel has been attacking Gaza and Hamas, and occupied Gaza even pre Hamas (and always controlled Gaza's borders even with Egypt). That means that it was fully ok because it was just Palestinians using what they can for self defense. See how batshit insane that logic is ? Remember, Israel has never stopped colonizing the west bank even after they stopped the armed struggle. So according to you, Israel deserves everything it gets in self defense. That type of logic works well when you only apply it to the side you favor but it completely falls apart especially in this mess of a conflict
- anjel 3y ago[flagged]
- morkalork 3y ago"Our system is 90% accurate if you don't count the 15-20 innocent people taken out for each hit". I know they're measuring the accuracy of target identification but that's laughable when used in this context. For 100 targets, 90 are 'correct', plus 20x civs per-target is 90/2100 or 4% real accuracy. Say you use a model that's only 50% accurate and limit yourself to 10 civs per-target, you're at 50/1100 or 4.5% accuracy! I guess my point is that no self-respecting datascient would release a 50% accurate model, let alone one used to make life or death decisions and yet, in the application of this model, decisions made by humans about its use has made it no better than doing exactly that.
- beefnugs 3y agoThese kinds of accurate numbers of acceptably killed innocents is really hurting a specific part of my sympathy brain somehow. "we really need to missile this guy or he will kill more" vs "well we got 37 badies and also kim and yashonda, damn i really liked yashonda" Actually after writing this my mind went farther, "since yashonda was a good person we actually have a whole bunch of hard facts about how good a person she actually was, did a lot of help for her community and was a real pillar of helping the next generation of kids be less violent...too bad we didn't add any of that info into the kill-algorithm "
- TheGeminon 3y agoWith 37,000 Palestinians marked as suspected militants, it would mean they expected up to 555,000 - 740,000 civilian casualties.
- mulmen 3y agoHow did you arrive at these numbers?
- magicalhippo 3y agoNot GP but: > Lavender listed as many as 37,000 Palestinian men > they were permitted to kill 15 or 20 civilians during airstrikes 37000 * 15 = 555000 37000 * 20 = 740000
- Qem 3y agoThey claim the system has 90% accuracy, so they would have to actually kill about 10% more people than these numbers, to offset the 10% error rate. So between 610500 and 814000. The whole Gaza strip had about 2 million people before the current siege.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoThe law of armed conflict acknowledges that civilian deaths are inevitable, and only prohibits attacks that are directed at civilians; rather than those which are directed at combatants with expected civilian casualties as collateral damage. The legal question is whether the civilian casualties are proportional to the concrete military value of the target. A question that's worth considering is whether, when considering proportionality, all civilians (as defined by law) are made equal in a moral sense. For example, the category "civilian" includes munitions workers or those otherwise offering support to combatants on the one hand, and young children on the other. It also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force. The law of armed conflict doesn't distinguish these; albeit that I think people might well distinguish, on a moral level, between casualties amongst young children, munitions workers, and informal combatants.
- bluish29 3y ago> For example, the category "civilian" includes munitions workers or those otherwise offering support to combatants on the one hand, and young children on the other. It also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force. I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1] By your argument would you say that all of these are legitimate targets? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Israel
- bawolff 3y ago> I wonder if you would say the same on the other side where every male or female above 18 years is required to serve in thr military and in the reserve afterwards? [1] I don't think anything in the grandparent post suggested that. If someone used to be a combatant and then ceased fighting, usually they then become a civilian. They don't stay a combatant for life. Reserve forces not on duty are not generally combatants. You have to be in the fight to be a combatant. Things get more complicated with combatants who don't fully wear uniforms, which is why failing to wear a uniform is a war crime. It should be noted this isn't so much the grandparent's personal opinion as they are just paraphrasing what the geneva convention says. However there is of course a lot more details to it then that and the devil is in the details. [Edit: i think i read the post too quickly. The grandparent is incorrect when saying "[Civilians] also includes members of the civil population who are actually involved in hostilities without being a formal part of an armed force.". If you pick up a gun and start shooting the other side, you are not a civilian. It doesn't matter whether you are formally part of the armed forces. Civilians get protected because we want to protect the innocents stuck in the middle. People who are taking part in a war dont get that protection]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- genman 3y agoIt doesn't matter if they used dumb or smart bombs to destroy the target. When their selected target entered the building then the whole building became the target by extension. Smart bomb would have equally destroyed the building. Important comparison between dumb and smart bomb is only the probability to hit the target (the building) and IDF used precise diving maneuvers with dumb bombs and avoided hitting high rises with dumb bombs, making the probabilities close. That is not the issue here. The main crux of the story is the automated target acquisition and the policy to engage the target in civilian homes - there are intelligence errors and collateral damage. The questions are: is the intelligence gathering and decision making ethical and is the accepted collateral damage ratio reasonable given the scale. This is different from for example Russian strategy to target whole neighborhoods to inflict terror in the civilian population by indiscriminate killings.
- protomolecule 3y agoThe West can stop it in a moment by imposing the same sanctions as it imposed on Russia. Or in a day, if it imposes that same sanctions that Iran or North Korea are subject to. Instead the West keeps supplying Israel with weapons and munitions.