I didn't say either was morally correct but one is clearly statistically worse as a matter of casualties. Why you think that's attempting justifying either is beyond me and perhaps something you aught to reflect on personally.

Correct.

I never said anything about it's morality but causing a years worth of deaths in Afghanistan/Iraq in a single month with the vast majority being non combatants and over a third being non military aged children.

Perhaps you did, I didn't see it but you certainly haven't reflected on it if you think your argument is sound.

That would be more deaths bud.

Oh "it's just faster" gotcha. Industrialized murder is somehow more ethically sound to you, gotcha.

[–] statist43@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Its faster, the (still, and hopefully fictional) scenario where Israel continues at tbe same killrate.

Wikipedia says 180,000 in afgahnistan and around 150,000-200,000 in Irak

That would be more deaths bud.

I dont know why we have this discussion, but both is horrible and there is no justification of killing civillians at any rate.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I used the numbers you provided, if they're wrong it's because you were wrong and similarly a shaker number over a longer period provides more support for my argument not less as you imply.

No one is denying both are horrible. You're the only one who's claimed I've taken a stance on it at all.