"The IDF bombed them in homes without hesitation, as a first option," an Israeli intelligence officer said. "It's much easier to bomb a family's home. The system is built to look for them in these situations."
    • @jeffw@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      12•1 year ago

      Yeah, but US drone strikes aren’t so intense on one small area or group of people

      • @mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
        14•1 year ago

        What do you mean? There’s a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I’m a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.

        We we’re much worse.

        • @jeffw@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          0•1 year ago

          It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide

          • Patapon EnjoyerEnglish
            4•1 year ago

            All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.

          • @jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
            5•1 year ago

            It’s 100% comparable. We’re talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That’s exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.

            It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it’s plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it’s 100. But it’s the same thing

            It’s either okay to kill civilians or it’s not.

              • @jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
                4•1 year ago

                I’m not omniscient I don’t know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I’m aware of

                  • @jet@hackertalks.comEnglish
                    4•1 year ago

                    I’m not sure I follow your argument. Yes it’s a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we’re fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force

                    This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions

          • @mwguy@infosec.pubEnglish
            11•1 year ago

            I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.

            If anything it’s not comparable because what we did was worse.