Gaza and the West Bank have way more of a claim on dead babies than Israel does. But that's OK because it's "collateral damage" according to "LOAC."
Without a limit, the same standard would fully justify Hiroshima and any potential use of nuclear bombs.
Which raises the question, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to one combatant? The Israelis have an AI program handling a large segment of their killchain, so they know the answer. But nobody will ever talk about it.
It would probably be better to just say it would justify the routine use of nuclear bombs in warfare. Mixed feelings about Hiroshima/Nagasaki persist, though.
You're downvoted but correct. One thing that I always found weird is that the allies insisted on unconditional surrender, which was unacceptable to the Japanese because they would brook no threat to the Emperor. Then they ultimately didn't touch the position anyway.
If the holocaust happened the Germans were just doing it in self defense and the dead kike brats was just what had to be done to eliminate an national sercuity threat during war time
Wait, so it would have been self-defense if they had done it, but they didn't, so they were so generous and humanitarian that they refused to deal with a national security threat during wartime?
The A-bombs saved millions of lives, easily 5 million, probably more.
This war has the fewest civilian casualties than any comparable conflict in history. Considering that Hamas used civilians as human shields & provided exactly 0.0 bomb shelters for their population, it is hard to imagine fewer lost.
The single WW2 battle of Ortona saw 13% of the civilian population killed in 4 days. It wasn't unusual.
This war has the fewest civilian casualties than any comparable conflict in history. Considering that Hamas used civilians as human shields & provided exactly 0.0 bomb shelters for their population, it is hard to imagine fewer lost.
The only relevant yardstick is the postwar period because all major wars after WWII were fought under the "rules-based international order" established by the winners.
Either of the battles for Fallujah in Iraq II is a much more relevant comparison since that was modern urban combat where as many civilians were evacuated as possible. In Gaza's case, Israel herded civilians into refugee camps. Fallujah's area is also slightly bigger than Gaza.
At the end of the second battle of Fallujah 800 civilians by the highest estimate were killed out of 30,000-90,000 left in the city. At worst that's 2.7%, more likely 1.5% or less. Meanwhile, Israel has killed at least the 70,000 reported up to now. If the entire civilian population stayed in place and didn't evacuate that's already higher than 3%. But we know that most of them have displaced to refugee camps, so the ratio of the actual battle is ridiculously higher. There are also thousands more that are buried under rubble.
Fallujah was fought with extreme restraint. Meanwhile Israel has dropped multiple times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb on Gaza in the form of conventional explosives.
70K includes Hamas soldiers and is solely based on Hamas's reports. You are aware of that, yes?
Their early reports were proven fraudulent & they revised them downwards, remember?
Hiroshima was a very small A-bomb. Check how many bombs were dropped on Cambodia, and they weren't even at war! Operation Menu alone dropped over 100K tons in 6 missions.
70K includes Hamas soldiers and is solely based on Hamas's reports. You are aware of that, yes?
I don't expect the death toll to revise under 70k by anyone's count, considering the devastation is equivalent to Hiroshima.
Hiroshima was a very small A-bomb. Check how many bombs were dropped on Cambodia, and they weren't even at war! Operation Menu alone dropped over 100K tons in 6 missions.
The A-bombs saved millions of lives, easily 5 million, probably more.
It's 5 million now? And 'probably more'? Looks like the inflation also applies there. I'm sure you'll be able to present the documents for this, just like you did for your claim that the UN found that Iraq had WMD.
In reality, the number was IIRC 100,000. Of course, there was never any consideration of Japanese lives. Hell, the second nuclear bomb is widely thought to have been dropped just as a warning to the USSR.
BTW, how many lives did the firebombing of Dresden save? The bombing of Hamburg? The Doolittle raid? The destruction of every Japanese city?
This war has the fewest civilian casualties than any comparable conflict in history
Except that even Israel's own numbers say otherwise (internal ones, not the lies they feed bribed, blackmailed and the plain stupid like you).
In global conflicts tracked by UCDP since 1989, civilians made up a greater proportion of the dead only in Srebenica – although not the Bosnian war overall – in the Rwandan genocide, and during the Russian siege of Mariupol in 2022, Pettersson said.src
Considering that Hamas used civilians as human shields & provided exactly 0.0 bomb shelters
You've tried this before and substantiated this as well as your "Iraq had WMD".
The single WW2 battle of Ortona saw 13% of the civilian population killed in 4 days. It wasn't unusual.
Which side in that WW2 battle said "for every one of us, we kill 50 of them, and it doesn't matter if they're children"?
Hell, even Hitler wouldn't say that openly. But you probably love him like your compatriot Yaruslav Hunka. Ukraine is always on the side of genocide.
Wow, you get dumber every day.
Dresden was destroyed by A-bombs now? I missed that in my history books. It was an atrocity, a war crime, it would be completely unknown except for Vonnegut's book.
The 100K dead number was indeed the early estimate of the losses for the first step of Downfall. Later it was revised to 250K based on gathered intelligence. It a post-war study they concluded it would be double that, Japan had far more men and resources than they'd imagined.
Then there were 2 more operations to carry out...
Oh? You have access to the IDF's inside information? ESP? Crystal ball? Chicken entrails? What's your secret source?
In Rwanda there were military and para-military forces on both sides that specifically sought civilians for massacre. You are an idiot to claim the IDF is doing anything remotely like that.
Edit: Oops! Wrong quote came up. So some Israeli bureaucrat said something nasty, boo hoo. Hamas has vowed to kill every Jew in Israel, then the rest of the planet. That's the instruction of their holy texts, eh? But the IDF are the bad guys? Nonsense.
Dresden was destroyed by A-bombs now? I missed that in my history books.
You also missed that in my comment. Nowhere did it say that.
It was an atrocity, a war crime
At least you admit that. By today's standards, yes.
The 100K dead number was indeed the early estimate of the losses for the first step of Downfall. Later it was revised to 250K based on gathered intelligence. It a post-war study they concluded it would be double that, Japan had far more men and resources than they'd imagined.
So you're telling me that after the war was over, and the deed was done, they created studies to justify what they had done? That is not exactly unsurprising. Also, 500K - even if accurate - is still a long way from 5 million.
Oh? You have access to the IDF's inside information?
Not just me. You do too. You just close your eyes and hold your ears and shout "LALALALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU". 83%. The Bosnian War had a small proportions of civilian casualties. Great Russia has a smaller proportion of civilian casualties in its just reconquest of the borderlands, even though the deep state potentates keep bashing them.
In Rwanda there were military and para-military forces on both sides that specifically sought civilians for massacre. You are an idiot to claim the IDF is doing anything remotely like that.
You also failed to read this quote. English is your second language?
So some Israeli bureaucrat said something nasty,
Some bureaucrat? The entire country is steeped in genocidal rhetoric and calls to murder children. This wasn't just some guy. A Major General who commands the military intelligence service.
How about the Minister of Finance who says that they shouldn't be scared to foster epidemics of disease in Gaza?
Seldom has a genocide been so openly admitted to by so many.
Hamas has vowed to kill every Jew in Israel, then the rest of the planet.
Oh really? So they're honorary Ukrainians? I bet you can't cite that. Also, Hamas has killed orders of magnitude fewer than your beloved IDF war criminals.
That's the instruction of their holy texts, eh?
It isn't, but it is that of Israel - see how they call Palestinians Amalek.
But the IDF are the bad guys? Nonsense.
It's funny that you guys were the most fanatical concentration camp guards, but now that your former victims are committing a genocide, you cheer that. It seems that you're not for or against any given group, you're just pro-genocide.
Gaza and the West Bank have way more of a claim on dead babies than Israel does. But that's OK because it's "collateral damage" according to "LOAC."
Without a limit, the same standard would fully justify Hiroshima and any potential use of nuclear bombs.
Which raises the question, how many innocent people is it acceptable to kill to get to one combatant? The Israelis have an AI program handling a large segment of their killchain, so they know the answer. But nobody will ever talk about it.
Probably one of the worse examples to use given the alternative options.
It would probably be better to just say it would justify the routine use of nuclear bombs in warfare. Mixed feelings about Hiroshima/Nagasaki persist, though.
Not when you remember that one of the alternative options was to accept a conditional surrender.
You're downvoted but correct. One thing that I always found weird is that the allies insisted on unconditional surrender, which was unacceptable to the Japanese because they would brook no threat to the Emperor. Then they ultimately didn't touch the position anyway.
If the holocaust happened the Germans were just doing it in self defense and the dead kike brats was just what had to be done to eliminate an national sercuity threat during war time
Wait, so it would have been self-defense if they had done it, but they didn't, so they were so generous and humanitarian that they refused to deal with a national security threat during wartime?
The A-bombs saved millions of lives, easily 5 million, probably more.
This war has the fewest civilian casualties than any comparable conflict in history. Considering that Hamas used civilians as human shields & provided exactly 0.0 bomb shelters for their population, it is hard to imagine fewer lost.
The single WW2 battle of Ortona saw 13% of the civilian population killed in 4 days. It wasn't unusual.
The only relevant yardstick is the postwar period because all major wars after WWII were fought under the "rules-based international order" established by the winners.
Either of the battles for Fallujah in Iraq II is a much more relevant comparison since that was modern urban combat where as many civilians were evacuated as possible. In Gaza's case, Israel herded civilians into refugee camps. Fallujah's area is also slightly bigger than Gaza.
At the end of the second battle of Fallujah 800 civilians by the highest estimate were killed out of 30,000-90,000 left in the city. At worst that's 2.7%, more likely 1.5% or less. Meanwhile, Israel has killed at least the 70,000 reported up to now. If the entire civilian population stayed in place and didn't evacuate that's already higher than 3%. But we know that most of them have displaced to refugee camps, so the ratio of the actual battle is ridiculously higher. There are also thousands more that are buried under rubble.
Fallujah was fought with extreme restraint. Meanwhile Israel has dropped multiple times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb on Gaza in the form of conventional explosives.
70K includes Hamas soldiers and is solely based on Hamas's reports. You are aware of that, yes?
Their early reports were proven fraudulent & they revised them downwards, remember?
Hiroshima was a very small A-bomb. Check how many bombs were dropped on Cambodia, and they weren't even at war! Operation Menu alone dropped over 100K tons in 6 missions.
I don't expect the death toll to revise under 70k by anyone's count, considering the devastation is equivalent to Hiroshima.
Cambodia is mostly jungle. Irrelevant.
It's 5 million now? And 'probably more'? Looks like the inflation also applies there. I'm sure you'll be able to present the documents for this, just like you did for your claim that the UN found that Iraq had WMD.
In reality, the number was IIRC 100,000. Of course, there was never any consideration of Japanese lives. Hell, the second nuclear bomb is widely thought to have been dropped just as a warning to the USSR.
BTW, how many lives did the firebombing of Dresden save? The bombing of Hamburg? The Doolittle raid? The destruction of every Japanese city?
Except that even Israel's own numbers say otherwise (internal ones, not the lies they feed bribed, blackmailed and the plain stupid like you).
In global conflicts tracked by UCDP since 1989, civilians made up a greater proportion of the dead only in Srebenica – although not the Bosnian war overall – in the Rwandan genocide, and during the Russian siege of Mariupol in 2022, Pettersson said. src
You've tried this before and substantiated this as well as your "Iraq had WMD".
Which side in that WW2 battle said "for every one of us, we kill 50 of them, and it doesn't matter if they're children"?
Hell, even Hitler wouldn't say that openly. But you probably love him like your compatriot Yaruslav Hunka. Ukraine is always on the side of genocide.
Wow, you get dumber every day.
Dresden was destroyed by A-bombs now? I missed that in my history books. It was an atrocity, a war crime, it would be completely unknown except for Vonnegut's book.
The 100K dead number was indeed the early estimate of the losses for the first step of Downfall. Later it was revised to 250K based on gathered intelligence. It a post-war study they concluded it would be double that, Japan had far more men and resources than they'd imagined.
Then there were 2 more operations to carry out...
Oh? You have access to the IDF's inside information? ESP? Crystal ball? Chicken entrails? What's your secret source?
In Rwanda there were military and para-military forces on both sides that specifically sought civilians for massacre. You are an idiot to claim the IDF is doing anything remotely like that.
Edit: Oops! Wrong quote came up. So some Israeli bureaucrat said something nasty, boo hoo. Hamas has vowed to kill every Jew in Israel, then the rest of the planet. That's the instruction of their holy texts, eh? But the IDF are the bad guys? Nonsense.
You also missed that in my comment. Nowhere did it say that.
At least you admit that. By today's standards, yes.
So you're telling me that after the war was over, and the deed was done, they created studies to justify what they had done? That is not exactly unsurprising. Also, 500K - even if accurate - is still a long way from 5 million.
Not just me. You do too. You just close your eyes and hold your ears and shout "LALALALALALALA, CAN'T HEAR YOU". 83%. The Bosnian War had a small proportions of civilian casualties. Great Russia has a smaller proportion of civilian casualties in its just reconquest of the borderlands, even though the deep state potentates keep bashing them.
You also failed to read this quote. English is your second language?
Some bureaucrat? The entire country is steeped in genocidal rhetoric and calls to murder children. This wasn't just some guy. A Major General who commands the military intelligence service.
How about the Minister of Finance who says that they shouldn't be scared to foster epidemics of disease in Gaza?
Seldom has a genocide been so openly admitted to by so many.
Oh really? So they're honorary Ukrainians? I bet you can't cite that. Also, Hamas has killed orders of magnitude fewer than your beloved IDF war criminals.
It isn't, but it is that of Israel - see how they call Palestinians Amalek.
It's funny that you guys were the most fanatical concentration camp guards, but now that your former victims are committing a genocide, you cheer that. It seems that you're not for or against any given group, you're just pro-genocide.