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…

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…

  • samokosik@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
    91·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • TinyPizza@kbin.socialOP
      43·
      8 months ago

      Reasonable! Doctors and civilians? It’s OK if you just say doctors. Legitimately interested in your stance.

      • samokosik@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        31·
        8 months ago

        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 removed are hiding there, despite the fact I would no longer like to see them in this world.

          • samokosik@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
            21·
            8 months ago

            That’s my personal opinion and is not really relevant.

            However, so far the numbers were not higher than in other wars.

            • TinyPizza@kbin.socialOP
              21·
              8 months ago

              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?

              • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
                2·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • TinyPizza@kbin.socialOP
                  22·
                  8 months ago

                  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?

              • samokosik@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
                1·
                8 months ago

                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

                • TinyPizza@kbin.socialOP
                  3·
                  8 months ago

                  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?