I will need to see concrete evidence that these people were, in fact, members of the terrorist resistance before I believe claims that they were. However, we are currently assuming that all claims of terrorists being present are true for every strike. I would like you to know that I selected these strikes at random.
- This claim states that there were 19 terrorists and 93 total killed at the Al-Tabi’in mosque and school on 08/10/24. Survivors state that most of the casualties were women and children. That means there was a 79.6% civilian casualty rate.
- This claim states that there were 9 confirmed Hamas casualties of 40 killed at a school in the Nuseirat refugee camp on 06/06/24. The casualties were described as children and elderly, and this strike was verified by the source as using US munitions. That means there was a 77.5% civilian casualty rate.
- This source claims that there have been (as of 07/06/24) 343 IDF soldiers killed and 38,000 confirmed Palestinian deaths with Israel claiming 1/3 of deaths are combatants. 66% civilian casualty rate since October 7th.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
I read earlier this year that Israel considered 100 civilian deaths for one Hamas fighter a fair trade. I can’t find the exact article, but it was about their use of AI in deciding targets. According to this article a “10% failure rate” is totally acceptable. So, anywhere between 9-1 and 100-1 is within parameters. Children are a points multiplier.
10% failure rate implies they fail to hit a millitant 1-10 times no?
I would assume success isn’t bombing random people.
I couldn’t find the article i was looking for, and it’s basically a rhetorical nswer to a rhetorical question. So, please take my cheek with a grain of salt.
I will ask again: what is the acceptable child to terrorist death ratio?
just to humor you, statistically you could run a theoretical simulation of whether or not getting rid of hamas entirely now, saves more potential human lives, than simply letting them exist. It’s very possible (since this is the middle east) that it would statistically make more sense to completely get rid of them now. Such that they cannot exist in a similar capacity in the future.