"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."
  • @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