Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”
Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.
destruction of Hamas’s military and governing capabilities; and returning the hostages home
And these are Netanyahu’s current goals:
Seizing the Rafah Crossing is a very significant step towards destroying the remaining military capabilities of Hamas, including the elimination of the four terrorist battalions in Rafah, and an important step to damage the governmental capabilities of Hamas
You mean his goals keep changing? Hmm… seems like a constantly changing military objective would allow you to kill an unlimited number of children justifiably based on your reasoning.
Today, he says the Rafah operation is a significant step towards
destroying the remaining military capabilities of Hamas, including the elimination of the four terrorist battalions in Rafah,
and an important step to damage the governmental capabilities of Hamas
The first two goals look unchanged.
There is no mention of hostages in my quote. Maybe he isn’t interested in that any more, but it’s entirely possible he mentioned it elsewhere and I didn’t see it.
Philosophers have justified killing civilians in order to achieve a military objective.
Children are civilians.
Therefore, philosophers have justified killing children in order to achieve a military objective.
By your logic, if the Geneva conventions do not mention “Palestinians” then they do not protect Palestinians.
You have yet to show a single philosopher who has justified in killing an unlimited number of civilians to achieve a military objective. All you have said is that it wouldn’t be allowed for that to happen. Which doesn’t mean it isn’t justified.
Can you even show a philosopher who agrees with your upper limit cap on civilian deaths you put up earlier? Don’t tell me to do the research myself, don’t give me the law, quote the philosopher specifically advocating your upper limit cap.
Or just admit you were being dishonest. Either one.
And I don’t think I ever will. As I said earlier, “There is no military goal that justifies killing “any amount” of civilians. All of them have limits, which are based on military capabilities.”
I never provided an upper limit cap.
I said “we would consider 15,000 to 75,000 civilian deaths to be normal at this point.”
Normal, as in “typical”. Which is not the same as acceptable, it depends on whether you believe a “normal” war is acceptable.
As I suggested earlier, it’s quite reasonable to take the pacifist position that even “normal” wars are not acceptable.
Israel’s goal is to destroy Hamas. Every time they kill innocent children, they create more members of Hamas. Therefore, their goal is any amount of children including 100% of them.
Sorry, I’m not going to stop making this about children just because you don’t want it to be.
So when do you think they should stop killing children before it is no longer justified?
Destroying Hamas means destroying the current leadership, so it can no longer function.
It’s true that Israel is running the risk of inciting hatred and creating more fighters, but those future fighters won’t be in Hamas. They will be in some other organization that replaces Hamas, just like Hamas replaced Fatah.
Where is that claimed? Or is that just your opinion?
These were Netanyahu’s goals in October:
And these are Netanyahu’s current goals:
You mean his goals keep changing? Hmm… seems like a constantly changing military objective would allow you to kill an unlimited number of children justifiably based on your reasoning.
In October, he said he wanted
Today, he says the Rafah operation is a significant step towards
The first two goals look unchanged.
There is no mention of hostages in my quote. Maybe he isn’t interested in that any more, but it’s entirely possible he mentioned it elsewhere and I didn’t see it.