Are westerners only able to conceptualise the killing of civilians? Are they so far removed from having normal countries that they forget that wars are fought between armies?

Talk about cultural chauvinism. The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations. And the irony is thick. You’re accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.

The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” No the implication is that westerners love killing civilians so much that they forget that wars are fought between militaries. I’ll be more clear about this next time. That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. You want an argument? It’s trivial to give one. All western countries have been involved in warmongering in west asia since before I was born. There is full justification for any group in west asia to launch attacks on western military assets. Even under international law (which western militaries refuse to follow), retaliating against military attacks is fully allowed. America and its zionist occupation of Palestine attacked Iran (military targets and civilians), and even inside its borders and capital city*. The Iranian state has every right to bomb any American military target, even if it were inside US border. *this isn’t the first time either. The Americans did this last year, and even in trump’s 1rst term minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians Sure, there are civilians casualties from war. So should America be allowed to bomb and genocide whoever they want with no one fighting back? Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law. Lmao western militaries do not give a single fuck about civilians or collateral damage or international law. You really want to present the butchers of gaza as some sort of hippies in 2026?

So just to be clear, are civilians legitimate targets as long as they live in the “wrong” country?

Reading comprehension curse strikes again I have never once advocated for the deliberate targeting of civilians and have specified again and again that warfighting should be between militaries.

I didn’t say you supported deliberately targeting civilians. My point was that attacking military targets inside heavily populated areas will inevitably kill civilians. That’s why civilian protection is a central principle in international humanitarian law. The rule has to apply universally.

“I genocided your brothers and bombed your schools and seiged you but please don’t hit my military targets cause I put them in densely populated areas” Your humanitarian principle requires everyone in the world to basically allow themselves to be attacked by America, it’s European lapdogs and the zionist occupation. From a legal and military standpoint your logic is simply absurd.

Self-defense and protecting civilians are not mutually exclusive. That’s literally why the laws of war exist.