[muzani]

I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.

Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas' or the US dropping nukes in WW2 instead of bombing the Japanese Emperor. This is decent as far as wars go.

[ekjhgkejhgk]

> Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas'

1) Israel didn't "have" to raze anything, they chose to.

2) "Beat Hamas" is an excuse for Israel to do what it wants, which is to raze entire cities.

[throwaway2037]

    > I prefer assassinations of leaders in wars over deaths of soldiers and especially civilians.

To me, this argument doesn't hold water. Think about some counterexamples: (1) Netanyahu and Gaza. Surely, 100K+ civilians died as a result of that war. (2) Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Vietnam. A staggering number of civilians died in that war. (3) GW Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq/2.

My guess: All of those leaders are responsible for more innocent civilian deaths in each conflict than Khamenei's entire reign.

To me, I am very conflicted about the assassination of Khamenei. Yeah, he did a bunch of bad stuff and was very destabilising in the region, but I need to draw the line at assassination. It was unnecessary. It is a slippery slope.

[muzani]

It was a criticism of the three wars you mentioned. I think a quick victory would have limited civilian deaths in all those situations.

Except the first one, because the goal of that war was killing the civilians. They could have assassinated Hamas leaders just as easily, but then there would be no reason to bomb all those hospitals and children.

[jasomill]

To the extent that they're actually effective, I agree.

Trouble is, higher-ups are easily replaceable, and the rank-and-file True Believers may be even more willing to follow orders in the name of a dead tyrant than a living one.

Or not. Sic semper tyrannis. Best wishes to the people of Iran.

[deaux]

> Considering how Israel had to raze entire cities to beat 'Hamas'

They didn't, they just had to stop funding them, as Hamas has been funded by Israel.

[whacko_quacko]

That's like saying the EU fundeh Hamas because they gave aid money to Gaza. If you squint at it the right way then maybe, but fundamentally it's disingenuous to call something like that funding.

But "the Jews .. uhm, I mean Israel .. had it coming and they did it to themselves" is always a favorite, isn't it?

[HDThoreaun]

Israel stopped finding hamas decades ago

[flyinglizard]

No, Hamas was never funded by Israel. In this instance, Hamas was funded by Qatar, and the Israelis were complicit by allowing it. But it's also important to remember that Hamas is the elected sovereign in Gaza, and this money was used in part to run Gaza's infrastructure. In the same way Taliban runs Afghanistan, Hamas runs Gaza.

The assumption in Israel was that it was beneficial to have Hamas retain something to lose, and not starve them dry outright. Of course that didn't pan out well, given what Hamas did in October 7th.

But saying Hamas was funded by Israel is an outright lie, and the irony it comes from the same people who blame Israel for not letting supplies into Gaza during war. So no matter if Israel does or does not, it's always to blame simply by being.