• Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    If someone invades my home, 75% of people in my home are my family including the invader. So if in response, I only kill 50% of my family, by your logic I would have done very well.

    The fact that they are killing a percentage of civilians that’s less than the overall percentage of civilians in a region is irrelevant to determining how effectively civilian harm is being minimised, it just means they are doing slightly better than killing people completely at random. I think you’d agree that’s quite a low bar you’re setting there.

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Except that’s not a good analogy.

      How many people would you be willing to have the military kill to get your child back if they had been taken hostage?

      If the kidnappers were hiding behind their own family, with their family knowing they’ve done an evil thing, would that change your answer?

      I know I wouldn’t care how many they had to take out, my child is worth worth more to me than terrorists (and their supporters) lives.

      Would I prefer they don’t take out women and children while getting my child back? Of course, but the whole point of using human shields is to make it difficult to do just that.

      The Israelis got 4 hostages back today, and it looks like there were around 200 Palestinian casualties to do so. Too bad for them.