It doesn't. Mosul's civilian population were Iraqi citizens, the conflict was much larger, lasted a lot longer, used smaller munitions, resulted in a lot more military deaths and significantly less civilian deaths. This is despite the enemy being significantly better trained, better equipped, better logistics, years of preparation and less intelligence by the anti-ISIL coalition.
"Better" is hard to judge, but mosul was about ten months and resulted in 10k civilian deaths. This one is already several times that count in a much shorter time span.
Historical comparisons aren't relevant when evaluating whether conduct today is acceptable, especially when we're talking about the deaths of innocents.
Every day is an opportunity to be better than our ancestors.
Looks very relevant to compare. Or in more practical terms, it's worth comparing to something as a reference that's similar in complexity of urban warfare but was handled better.
Peace is usually a product of avoiding "whataboutism". Humans of all shades and beliefs and origins have proven time and time again how barbaric we can be. True "justice" can probably only happen with the extinction of our species; to avoid that, someone has to say "enough" even if there are those who believe it isn't.
It doesn't. Mosul's civilian population were Iraqi citizens, the conflict was much larger, lasted a lot longer, used smaller munitions, resulted in a lot more military deaths and significantly less civilian deaths. This is despite the enemy being significantly better trained, better equipped, better logistics, years of preparation and less intelligence by the anti-ISIL coalition.
> resulted in a lot more military deaths
Yeah, they lost a lot of infantry forces and it's probably the reason there were less civilian deaths.
Well, yeah. That's kind of how wars are supposed to go. Soldiers die so that civilians don't.
If you kill tons of civilians from the other side to save soldiers from your own side then you end up in the ICJ.
The issue in this case is (possible) genocide, which is a different question.
"Better" is hard to judge, but mosul was about ten months and resulted in 10k civilian deaths. This one is already several times that count in a much shorter time span.
Iraqi army also lost almost half of their anti-terrorist Golden division in that battle, so that's possibly related.
Historical comparisons aren't relevant when evaluating whether conduct today is acceptable, especially when we're talking about the deaths of innocents.
Every day is an opportunity to be better than our ancestors.
Looks very relevant to compare. Or in more practical terms, it's worth comparing to something as a reference that's similar in complexity of urban warfare but was handled better.
Peace is usually a product of avoiding "whataboutism". Humans of all shades and beliefs and origins have proven time and time again how barbaric we can be. True "justice" can probably only happen with the extinction of our species; to avoid that, someone has to say "enough" even if there are those who believe it isn't.