No the implication is that westerners love killing civilians so much that they forget that wars are fought between militaries. I'll be more clear about this next time.

That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose.

You want an argument? It's trivial to give one. All western countries have been involved in warmongering in west asia since before I was born. There is full justification for any group in west asia to launch attacks on western military assets.

Even under international law (which western militaries refuse to follow), retaliating against military attacks is fully allowed. America and its zionist occupation of Palestine attacked Iran (military targets and civilians), and even inside its borders and capital city*. The Iranian state has every right to bomb any American military target, even if it were inside US border.

*this isn't the first time either. The Americans did this last year, and even in trump's 1rst term

minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians

Sure, there are civilians casualties from war. So should America be allowed to bomb and genocide whoever they want with no one fighting back?

Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.

Lmao western militaries do not give a single fuck about civilians or collateral damage or international law. You really want to present the butchers of gaza as some sort of hippies in 2026?

[–] Azrael@reddthat.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So just to be clear, are civilians legitimate targets as long as they live in the “wrong” country?

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Reading comprehension curse strikes again

I have never once advocated for the deliberate targeting of civilians and have specified again and again that warfighting should be between militaries.

[–] Azrael@reddthat.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I didn’t say you supported deliberately targeting civilians.

My point was that attacking military targets inside heavily populated areas will inevitably kill civilians. That’s why civilian protection is a central principle in international humanitarian law. The rule has to apply universally.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

"I genocided your brothers and bombed your schools and seiged you but please don't hit my military targets cause I put them in densely populated areas"

Your humanitarian principle requires everyone in the world to basically allow themselves to be attacked by America, it's European lapdogs and the zionist occupation.

From a legal and military standpoint your logic is simply absurd.

[–] Azrael@reddthat.com 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Self-defense and protecting civilians are not mutually exclusive. That’s literally why the laws of war exist.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. Let's cut this thread honestly it's long enough.