• RidderSport@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    There is a difference though, and that is that while babies tend to be in the vicinity of adults, that could potentially be terrorists, you cannot make the same assumption (if you were to actually be make it in the former case) about uniformed and distinctly marked UN-peacekeepers that have their own bases. Attacking that letter can not be collateral damage or be an attack on potential terrorists, while the former could with a lot of mental gymnastics be legitimised (though not morally justified).

    And let’s be real, international diplomacy is the art of mental gymnastics at olympic level.

    • Deway@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      you cannot make the same assumption (if you were to actually be make it in the former case) about uniformed and distinctly marked UN-peacekeepers that have their own bases.

      Actually, that’s exactly what the Israeli government did, they said they were trying to attack Hezbollah bases and the Peacekeepers should leave the area. And somehow, some people believe them.