LogFAQs > #979146091

Devil_May_Cry posted...

if your family was in danger of being blown up by rockets and you had the opportunity to kill the ones targeting your family but there are innocent people around them would you take them out still?

Depends how many innocent people. One or two, and a fair chance that they wouldn't be hurt? I'd probably go for it. A dozen, and a high chance that I'd injure/kill at least 4-5? I might still go for it, but I'd expect to be held accountable for that recklessness by people who were able to view the situation more impartially. A crowd of thousands, with the only way to maybe get the handful bad guys being to indiscriminately open fire on the crowd and crush them with tanks? Absolutely not, and anyone that would is a mass-murdering psychopath who should be shot dead immediately before they have a chance to act further on their murderous impulses.

Collateral damage is not a binary concept. In every instance, the scope of the damage must be measured against whatever gain is being used to justify it. It's not something you can make blanket statements about (with the exception of "you can't make blanket statements about it," which is technically itself a blanket statement).

Of course, that's also irrelevant to this particular incident. This wasn't collateral damage. This was just plain old mass murder.

MeatiestMeatus posted...

just as you can condemn the actions of Hamas and Iran-backed proxies without condemning all Palestinians or Arabic people.

I think that's part of the issue: a great many people defending Israel's genocidal crusade don't make a distinction between Hamas and the rest of the Palestinian/Arabic people, and therefore presume the same generalization of those criticizing Israel. And when they blame all Arabic people for Hamas' actions, that makes them a lot more comfortable with Israel's genocidal crusade.

Of course, this makes them idiotic, racist pieces of shit, but this shouldn't surprise anyone.