Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you insinuating if your argument is supposedly so damning? Just state it plainly.
[flagged]
- I'm under no confusion about what they're insinuating, that's not the point (see that below)
- I'm looking for their reply specifically
It's relatively easy to accuse, and to make up some story. It's a lot harder to provide substance and formulate a compelling argument.
Is the number of medical facilities really outstanding? Why does that suggest they're combatant hideouts? Which of them are, all? Why does them hiding combatants render double, triple, quadruple tapping, or even just targeting these facilities morally justified or reasonable? What sense does it even make to double, triple, quadruple tap in this context?
All pretty important questions I'd say, none of which are addressed by cowardly insinuations, I believe by design.
Last time I checked, my internal moral compass rated actually killing healthcare workers and the sick/injured/etc a lot worse than combatants using them as potential collateral (not that that'd be the pinnacle of morality). One would assume most other people's compass does too, hence why the above is news. How the paramedics that arrive afterwards become deserving of getting shelled, further remains an unelaborated-on mystery.