To reward you with the same treatment and reduce your opinion to an absurdity, are you saying an army with kids strapped to their chests would be invincible and allowed to kill whoever they choose with no consequence?
There is absolutely a difference between targeting civilians on purpose, and not being able to avoid some civilian casualties while targeting an army/militia that is purposefully using their proximity to civilians as a shield.
Seems like you are committed to manufacturing one-sided outrage.
That means absolutely nothing coming from someone who spends their day defending the stance that a child is acceptable collateral damage. That is literally what hamas believe they’re doing.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
To reward you with the same treatment and reduce your opinion to an absurdity, are you saying an army with kids strapped to their chests would be invincible and allowed to kill whoever they choose with no consequence?
There is absolutely a difference between targeting civilians on purpose, and not being able to avoid some civilian casualties while targeting an army/militia that is purposefully using their proximity to civilians as a shield.
Congratulations, you took my response and went so reductionist with it that it no longer resembles anything I wrote.
There’s a difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. If you can’t see that your bias is showing.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
That means absolutely nothing coming from someone who spends their day defending the stance that a child is acceptable collateral damage. That is literally what hamas believe they’re doing.