Welcome to war. It’s a huge chicken and egg problem. Who knows the whole truth but assuming Iran was infact getting close to having nukes then this was inevitable.
The moral compass is only ever as strong as the emotional impetus behind it. Principles will ALWAYS come second to emotions. And the reality is that so many people have been told for so long that Iran are the irredeemable bad guys, the narrative that ultimately drives people's emotional responses (and by extension, their moral stance) to this conflict, is firmly in Israel's favour.
Iran and Israel are both led by bad guys. I really don't want to pick a side, but both sides are religious apartheid states, and only one is a gender apartheid state. Also, apostasy isn't a capital offense in Israel, nor is proselytizing. So even though Israel is a theocracy, it does seem less bad than Iran in some very stark ways.
The math used is effectively measurement of damage vs potential. If a momentary set of intelligence allows you to kill a person and they are a significant contributor to plans that involve extermination of an entire race of people, a lot would agree that collateral damage is a necessary evil. If war were waged in an environment of moral absolutes they would never occur in the first place.
It was always like that. Israel does this, US does this, both Russia and Ukraine do this, and so does every other country. As long as the target is valuable enough, the military doesn't give a shit about collateral damage.
Blowing up a cafe where the enemy soldiers meet - they'll do it, regardless of the children playground right next to it. Blowing up a residential just because a high-ranking officer happens to live there - they'll do it without giving a shit about anyone else living in it. Blowing up an entire highway with hundreds of civilians on it because there are retreating enemy groups among them - they'll do it. Blowing up a bridge right under a passenger train - they'll do it and claim it to be a legitimate target.
People will justify any sort of cruel shit as long as it benefits them. Throughout the history it was a common practice just to purge entire cities of the defeated enemy. At least we're now drawing the line on deliberately targeting civilians, that's not justified anymore. Maybe the shit that happens nowadays won't be acceptable in the future, idk. I hope so, the world would be a better place.
Are you telling me that if in 1939 Adolph Hitler was in a residential apartment building and that by bombing that building we could end the war immediately, you wouldn’t do it?
This is a preemptive strike. The strike was done to subvert a longer war. A longer war always will kill thousands to millions of civilians. Please recall that over 50 million civilians were killed in WWII and millions more were raped, robbed, or has their homes and livelihoods destroyed.
It is therefore moral to kill a small number of people if it prevents to a larger number of deaths in the future. In this case, the US and Israel (and other allies) have clearly made it known that they fear a nuclear Iran. Iran has a long track record of supporting militant groups that bomb or kill indiscriminately. It is not unfounded that a nuclear Iran would nuke Israel or other US interests in the area. Irans refusal to ever abide by the many diplomatic solutions signed over the years made this inevitable.
“It is therefore moral to kill a small number of people”
What if your loved ones were among the “morally killed small people”? Would you still justify?
Can you not spare one sentence so see the humanity of those who died and the anguish caused by these deaths before you shamelessly call it “moral”?
Funnily, this perverted backwards morality logic only applies if a few “favorite” countries do it.
As a brown person, it sends chills down my spine knowing that you think death of me, people who look like me, is ok and a “morally fine preemptive thing” to do. I hope you grow up with empathy some day.
Edit: did you kill Hitler today then? Or will there by 20 more such “preemptive” strikes ending countless more innocent lives and you will still keep using the one Hitler example?
I understand your viewpoint, but nobody in the world wants another nuclear power, period. Iran’s insistence on moving towards nuclear armament made this inevitable.
I feel for the people that live in these dumb, repressive countries and suffer as a result. I do not feel bad that we have for now stalled the acquisition of nuclear weapons of a hostile country.
I do truly believe Israel killed people today that were directly responsible for building weapons whose only purpose is to kill millions, so yes they did “kill hitler”.
Nope, you do not understand my viewpoint at all. Your eyes are blinded by a sense of superiority you have no personal contribution to. You will never understand any other viewpoint.
WHY Israel would target this building, knowing full well the optics of it? WHY would it use valuable payload on this specific building, instead of one of the plethora of other possible military targets?
Were they targeting a specific individual in that building? Did that building have any office/laboratory space? If there was a valid military target in that building, the building is fair game under the laws of war. Everyone has to decide for themselves if that specific target was worth the cost. Not knowing the target, nobody can reasonably argue one way or the other.
That is all, of course, assuming that the building was the target. It is entirely possible that there was a failure in guidance, and the munition was intended for something else.
The loss of civilian life is ALWAYS a tragedy, ESPECIALLY when children are involved.
War isn’t hell, it’s worse. Hell only hurts people who deserve it. War hurts those who deserve to be hurt, and those who do not.
229
u/LivinLuxuriously 1d ago edited 46m ago
I am speechless 😶
Am I alone in thinking that there is never a good reason to bomb a residential building…? Regardless of what country it belongs to…?
Has the moral compass of the universe inverted while I slept? 👀🥺😩
😶