3 ms·
Sounds like a weird way to phrase collateral damage?
by tough 2mo ago
Sounds like a weird way to phrase collateral damage?
- crote 2mo agoCollateral murder.
- Sabinus 2mo agoCivilians die in wars, and that's with the best intentions of all parties to the conflict. If one or both has got radicalised, then a lot of civilians die in war.
- drekipus 2mo agoThis is the Israeli take that is continually pushed to normalize their approach to "removing baby terrorists"
- bijowo1676 2mo agoyou are justifying 9/11 attack on the US, the similar logic to yours was used by Al-Qaeda
- Sabinus 2mo agoNo, I'm explaining to you that accidental civilian casualties in a war is a normal part of the terrible activity that is war. Good soldiers with the best of intentions will kill civilians in a war, because war is chaotic and very dangerous. Radicalised soldiers and armies will give less and less concern to civilians, and at a certain hated level civilians actually will get targeted by individual soldiers or squads. If it then moves up the command chain and there's not enough accountability or pushback from the top leadership then you get to proper genocidal actions like what happened at Srebrenica. Targeting civilians for death is not acceptable or justifiable.
- bijowo1676 2mo ago> civilian casualties in a war is a normal part > Targeting civilians for death is not acceptable or justifiable. so we have numerous evidence of US and its allied forces deliberatly murdering civilians and nothing happens. Why do you think targeting is not acceptable? from the evidence of dead innocent civilians, it sure as hell, seems like the military people think its acceptable and justifiable (which you just tried to justify by calling it "normal part")