- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- worldnews@lemmy.ml
The United Nations (U.N.) condemned a recent attack by Israel on a convoy of ambulances leaving a Gaza hospital. “I am horrified by the reported attack in Gaza on an ambulance convoy outside Al Shi…
You must log in or register to comment.
Meanwhile western nations are falling over each other to deliver military aid to Israel, a nation that clearly does not need it and is using those tools to manufacture fresh child skeletons as part their religious war.
Yeah, they had no issues with putting restrictions on how and where Ukraine was allowed to use certain weapons, but Israel can just casually do any war crime. The US is literally allowing them to target American citizens.
Other than the US and perhaps the UK, which western nations have given significant military aid to Israel recently?
I googled, and from what I can tell plenty of countries have sold the Israelis weapons under exiting contracts, but haven’t sent much actual military aid.
UK and Germany, for two.
Other than the US and UK.
Google says Germany’s providing 4 combat drones which were already in the country.
I feel goal posts shifting away to any response I make. Pass.
No. I asked a genuine question.
You claimed:
western nations are falling over each other to deliver military aid to Israel,
I asked:
Other than the US and perhaps the UK, which western nations have given significant military aid to Israel recently?
To which you answered the UK and Germany. My initial google suggested all that Germany has sent are 4 combat drones which were already in Israel but being used for training, which is why I asked you to backup your claim.
So to be honest, given I couldn’t find anything to support you claim, and you didn’t provide anything to source your claim, it sounds like you were talking out of your backside.
It’s quite believable that there were terrorists inside the convoy.
However, despite that, I would not attack a convoy of ambulances because there could still be a risk of killing actual doctors.
Reasonable! Doctors and civilians? It’s OK if you just say doctors. Legitimately interested in your stance.
Civilian causalities will be always there but at some point it may not be worth to kill that many people for finding a single military target.
E.g. I would never support throwing a nuclear bomb at Qatar just because those sons of bitches are hiding there, despite the fact I would no longer like to see them in this world.
What is your acceptable ratio of civilian to target then?
That’s my personal opinion and is not really relevant.
However, so far the numbers were not higher than in other wars.
The past wars in Gaza or the proportion of civilian deaths in wars in general? I understand that it’s your personal opinion that’s why I was curious. 1/5, maybe 1/10? That’s not a lot, is it? Do you feel that changes with the importance of target? Does it have to be important targets or are there acceptable numbers that you’d attach to any combatant?
Not OP, but this is just a bunch of hypothetical nonsense. Any scenario would vastly change the numbers. Say it’s a Rogue terrorist group with multiple nuclear weapons, that is set on launching in 24 hours… the allowable civilian casualties could be almost as high as a total city population. Too many variables for your question.
I’m asking for their opinion, how is that nonsense? I was specific in the context of the situation, so there really aren’t that many variables. I even volunteered the main things that would account for exceptions. What would you say with the specifics at hand?
They said they do have an opinion on it. They mention those numbers aren’t out of line with previous conflicts, so does that make the current ratios normal? If we’re here to discuss these topics, then why not this one? How is this anymore taboo then a thread about an ambulance convoy being targeted?
Deciding how many civilians can be killed for each target is for another discussion. Ideally the lower the number is, the better. That’s unfortunately not possible though
Would a ground campaign of selective engagement of hostile targets not lower that number? I mean, when someone shoots at you, or has a gun or is in front of you in a terror tunnel (hostages not withstanding) doesn’t that lead to a much lower toll? Israel fields one of the best trained and equipped forces in the world. How could they not have conducted this with the support of very limited/targeted strikes? This is a legitimate question that is being asked globally. You don’t think what I just laid out was possible?
“Now, for nearly one month, civilians in Gaza, including children & women, have been besieged, denied aid, killed & bombed out of their homes,” Guterres continued. “This must stop.”
dude sounds too woke to run the UN
/s
