Israel does not justify indiscriminate bombing, in Gaza or anywhere else. Nor does it conduct such raids. By contrast Israel conducts targeted aerial bombardment of specific areas where rockets are launched. Palestinians have averred that they have received text messages from the Israeli Air Force in Arabic telling them to evacuate in advance of the strikes.
Answer 2
Your compassion is admirable. Did you speak out while next door, the Muslim president of Syria was responsible for killing 150,000 Muslim citizens of his own country, including 1700 this week?
During the Israeli air campaign, the Gaza Health Ministry reported 250 deaths, while Israel reported 1,300 air strikes against Hamas terrorist targets in Gaza. How is your math ? Can you see what that means ? It means AT LEAST 1,050 air strikes that produced NOT ONE SINGLE casualty. You need to ask yourself: "How is this possible ?" You may talk about being harsh on Palestinians. I can personally and confidently promise you that if Israel were out to kill Palestinians, in the same way that Hamas is out to kill Jews, then one Israeli pilot in one Israeli airplane could easily have killed 250 or 500 in a half hour ... it wouldn't take 1,300 missions. The Israeli air force and army have done MORE to PROTECT the rights and security of the Palestinian people than ANY military force in the history of warfare. Israel's fight is with Hamas, NOT with the Palestinian people, and Israel is far more concerned for the welfare of the Palestinian people than their own government is. You only need to think about a few simple questions:
==> Why would Hamas launch rockets from inside a crowded city, where people could get hurt, instead of from open fields?
==> Why would Hamas dig tunnels under the border and into Israel? What on Earth could they be planning to use them for?
==> Why would Hamas spend huge sums of money buying weapons and building tunnels, instead of building electric power, water purification, roads and rails for their own people?
==> What kind of a political party is it that feels the need to write into its constitution that it promises to destroy a neighboring country and its population?
Let's see: In the Battle of Mogadishu (1993), between 1500 and 3000 Somalis died, including hundreds of civilians. How many Americans were killed? Eighteen. Did anyone accuse America for doing what it saw as necessary?During WW2, sixty-seven Japanese cities were carpet-bombed with incendiaries. 300,000 dead. War reportage should not treat the casualty count as a moral scale in which (like Golf) the higher the number, the lower is your rank. The fact that Japan suffered more than ten times the number of people killed than America did, does not change the war's moral barometer. America was fighting a just and necessary war against a heinous enemy.
In 2006, thousands of Hezbollah rockets rained down on us; the Iron Dome defense hadn't yet been perfected. Are you sad that now we, thank God, have an effective defense?
Now why don't you turn the question around and ask why is it that the terrorists in Gaza don't lay down their weapons, which place their own people in danger? They shot over 2500 rockets at us in one month alone (July 2014), forcing Israel to protect itself.
Link: What impact does the conflict have on the Israelis?
Link: How is Israel different than the rest of the Middle East?
Bombing the German cities was killing civilians. Many people believed this was wrong and that aerial attacks should be targeted at industrial and military facilities.
A bloodbath is a period of indiscriminate killing or slaughter.
Ostensibly, the IRA targetted the police (RUC), the British military, loyalist parilitaries and British or loyalist politicians. However, as on Bloody Friday, the bombings could be indiscriminate, deliberately targetting civilians or not caring if civilians are caught in the blasts. Even if they were specifically aiming for legitimate war-time targets, the nature of bombing as a tactic meant that civilians were almost guaranteed to be killed and, not that it matters to the victims, those harmed could be from either community. They would also target unionist/Protestant owned businesses that they believed to be linked to loyalist paramilitarism, as in the 1993 bombing of Frizelli's Fish Shop, above which a meeting of loyalist paramilitary leaders was due to take place. The bomb went off prematurely killing one of the bombers, a UDA man and eight civilians. Other cases like this were the killing of the pregnant wife of a British officer when she started his car.
The deadliest bombing of Japan was the bombing of Tokyo. It took place off and on for over three years. The deadliest single day of bombing was March 10 1945 (Operation Meetinghouse) when 335 allied B-29s set half of the city on fire, killing one hundred thousand civilians.
A massacre is large indiscriminate killing of human beings or animals.
Because not only were opposing armies fighting, but all ships could be and were sunk, and bombing of cities was undertaken by both sides, killing millions of civilians.
There are things that legally justify killing a person-- but the word "murder" means an unjustified killing. A killing in self defense, for example, may be a justifiable homicide and not a crime.
The USA. The American 15th air force bombed the city of Belgrade this way, killing about one to two thousand civilians and about a dozen military. I'm not aware of any other military using carpet bombing tactics in world war two.
by killing neutral, civilians and Jews
No. There is no justification in killing civilians for political ends.
The Palestinian conflict goes back many decades, to the time when Jewish guerrillas fought against the indigenous Palestinians. Now that Jews have the upper hand and have successfully declared a state of Israel, while denying the Palestinians the same right, even on the small fragments of territory left to them, we now find Palestinian guerrillas fighting against Israel. This should have been foreseeable, but compromises were not made.
The atomic bombing of the Japanese city of Hiroshima .