Yes, if said attacks were against valid military targets and those civilian deaths were collateral damage. Consider the alternatives for Israel: 1) Send troops in without air support into hostile urban guerilla territory, resulting in heavy casualties, or 2) Do not retaliate for Oct 7, encouraging further future attacks and proving human shield tactics effective. From a game theory point of view, both of these are colossally stupid moves that would result in more Israeli deaths.
If you want to blame anyone for said civilian deaths, blame the terrorist government that provoked the attack while using them as human shields.
They do, regularly, and they claim that they are legal attacks. I find the IDF to be more credible than you, random internet stranger, who I presume wasn’t in the room when these targets were chosen and is ignorant of the evidence which justifies them.
Yes, if said attacks were against valid military targets and those civilian deaths were collateral damage. Consider the alternatives for Israel: 1) Send troops in without air support into hostile urban guerilla territory, resulting in heavy casualties, or 2) Do not retaliate for Oct 7, encouraging further future attacks and proving human shield tactics effective. From a game theory point of view, both of these are colossally stupid moves that would result in more Israeli deaths.
If you want to blame anyone for said civilian deaths, blame the terrorist government that provoked the attack while using them as human shields.
I don’t for one second believe that the damage done is unavoidable collateral damage. You would have to be seriously brainwashed to think that.
Prove it isn’t.
Prove it is. lol.
The burden lies with Israel to justify the killing of innocent civilians.
They do, regularly, and they claim that they are legal attacks. I find the IDF to be more credible than you, random internet stranger, who I presume wasn’t in the room when these targets were chosen and is ignorant of the evidence which justifies them.