Is an attack like 9/11 justified since even the twin towers were used by the US government indirectly, owing to nearly everyone within paying taxes that supported US wars and expeditionary-ism?
Likewise, I'd want to keep in mind things like relative size and options on the table. WW2 incendiary and atomic bombing is one thing in the context of the ferocity and consumption of that war. Yet in the case of a small territory under varying degrees of military occupation and without full self determination, is there really no capability to take any action but bombing such places? (And no moral imperative to try to cause less collateral if it's realistically possible?)
It be cool if military and geopolitical leaders got together to define some of these things. They could get together and have a convention of sorts, maybe in a central, neutral place, like Geneva.
>Is an attack like 9/11 justified since even the twin towers were used by the US government indirectly, owing to nearly everyone within paying taxes that supported US wars and expeditionary-ism?
Were there uniformed military personnel operating out of the Twin Towers? Of course there weren't, so it's not even close to being comparable.
Israel is blatantly violating international laws
Bombing military targets is allowed. Hospitals, mosques, etc. lose their protected status if they are being used for military operations, which they are.
Which of the hospital bombings are you referring to? All or one of them?
Yes it was.
>there is strong evidence which does not conclusively prove its use
There is no strong evidence of any kind that it was improperly used.
>There's also new evidence of them using it again in Lebanon.
Also fake news.
>Which of the hospital bombings are you referring to? All or one of them?
The large one that supposedly killed 500 people in OCT. The rest of them are fake news as well.
Thus I'm suggesting that it can be justifiable to bomb a hospital or school in which enemy combatants are launching attacks from, yet also justifiable to do an act of violence on enemy taxpayers + potential conscripts in general.
By this reasoning, my personal opinion is that if we can use less force to get the same goals, or if we can avoid causing as much collateral damage via longer term planning decisions, it's probably a better choice.
In this case they've had an on-and-off military occupation + extreme restrictions on travel and trade and even foreign aid packages. That's a huge source for anger, and it makes it hard to justify often cutting the strip off from the world as much as possible but then bombing first rather than simply admitting they should either give them agency and self determination or make this occupation total and send boots on the ground to go stop Hamas terrorists in a way that might just kill a few less innocents along the way.
Sorry, but no. Justified by who? Do you think it is justifiable to attack civilians?
It's obviously blatantly wrong to kill people who don't want to fight you and wouldn't have resisted. Where things get messy if those same people are providing huge amounts of tax dollars to a government that actives tries to kill or otherwise harm you, doubly so if their government claims to be representative and embrace democratic principles, and thus in theory should be acting per the will of the majority of the population (e.g. mob rule).
And, as noted with the general Human Shield meme that goes around, should you just do nothing, sitting in paralysis if responding would involve even slight harm to civilians? What if that harm will save many more of your own civilians' lives at a cost of many foreign ones' lives? As priorly noted, messy situations are common.
My conclusion is that I was not justifying attacks personally, but stating that people can justify such attacks at least enough to not imo be self-evidently completely absurd.
Moreover, please note that my original messages were in fact describing how military bombings of civilians are easily justifiable in abstract from a distance (regardless of "side"), but the context of reality and the sociopolitical situation of those living in Gaza can make it clearer to us that the Israelis don't ONLY have this option as the least-collateral way to respond, nor a lack of alternatives in general, and so I believe it does become obviously wrong. Much as the 9/11 attacks should obviously be wrong to us, and yet western governments have engaged in active conscious bombings of economic and military targets on a huge scale (and there is a parallel there -- twin towers and the pentagon, economic and military targets after all, and supposedly the capitol too had control of that last plane not been contested and crashed, so a political target too)
Is this what you want to use your time for?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shi...
> In this Serious Game you need to kill terrorists shooting missiles. The action uses first person perspective in order to enhance immersion. The problem is that terrorists are surrounded by civilians and it is almost impossible to attack terrorists without killing civilians too. The dead are mourned and the rage of the survivors turns them into terrorists. You just have to play for a couple of minutes to realize that the only way to avoid ‘collateral damage’ is not to play.
This nicely completes the loop back to Kissinger’s choices in life.
https://www.onseriousgames.com/september-12th-a-toy-world-ne...
No, that is not who you would like us to be/have been. Very evidently, that is who we are.
>not who we are
It is absolutely who we are. We unconditionally support israel no matter what they do. They are our greatest ally!
The world needs less people like him.
No one should ever be complicit in carpet bombing. It's inhumane.
We in the US ought to hold the govt accountable everytime they drop bombs from the sky on civilians.
We're currently helping Israel do that in Gaza with our tax dollars. Hospitals and Schools getting air bombed. That is not who we are.