[zer0x4d]

Many people fail to see this. You can't compare a terrorist attack that intentionally targets civilians with no apparent military target to a legitimate attack on a defined military target that unfortunately results in some collateral damage.

[abalone]

Many people fail to see this because they have an intact moral core. Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians.

Israel has utilized a rate of expected civilian to militant casualties in Gaza at the rate of 100:1 [1].

[1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

[Terr_]

> Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians.

By that logic only the absolute number of (expected) civilian deaths matters... which can't be right.

If it were true, then exploding a city bus (1 soldier, 10 civilians) would be more moral than striking a military base (1,000 soldiers, 11 civilians.)

It would also suggest a kind of blame-shifting if one side decides to install their missile launchers in the playgrounds of elementary schools or whatever.

[abalone]

You are simply incorrect. “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.

But to your point, Israel’s ratio in Gaza was as high as 100 civilians to 1 soldier in the shopping mall (or more accurately, refugee family shelters).

[Terr_]

> “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number.

No, you've cut off the crucial second half of the sentence, which says a military operation with known risks of civilian deaths "is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians."

The phrase "those civilians" refers to a countable quantity of them.

Perhaps you meant to write "morally equivalent to targeting that proportion of civilians"?

[beedeebeedee]

This isn't pedantry, but what are you arguing?

[Terr_]

Assuming that's a plural "you", I would paraphrase the subthread like this:

_________

(1) zer0x4d: "Many people fail to see that morality depends on intent, there is a qualitative difference between deliberate and incidental collateral damage."

(2) abalone: "No, only people suffering from broken moral cores think there's a difference. An attack when they knew a predictable rate of collateral damage is morally the same as deliberately targeting those civilians who died."

(3) Terr_: "It's based on the number of civilians who die? That doesn't make sense. Consider these scenarios, where even though fewer civilians die, the intent/planning of the act makes us judge it as morally worse."

(4) abalone: "Incorrect, I said it was about comparing the two rates of death."

(5) Terr_: "Well, that's not quite what you wrote earlier, is this other version closer to what you meant to convey?"

(6) beedeebeedee: "What is being argued?"

(7) Terr_: [Error: Recursion depth exceeded]

[oneeyedpigeon]

There are many points on this grey line, and we often fail to recognise those in the middle. For example, between your two points is a very significant type of action that this one may well fall under: an attack on a military target that you are fully aware will result in significant collateral damage.

[chii]

> you are fully aware will result in significant collateral damage.

and the terrorists deliberately place themselves in a position where attacks on them results in massive collateral - aka, they want a human shield.