Have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no is sufficient.
Like the wife-beating question, your question assumes facts not in evidence: you are taking for granted that I was offering a justification for killing civilians. I was not, and I already corrected you on that point -- see above about your repeating yourself and refusing to think about opposing arguments. I was explaining the reason for the outcry, because that's what you'd asked for. If you wanted to debate justifications for killing civilians, you could have asked for one of those instead.
"Lack of targeting" is not a justification for killing; it's one element of such a justification. A whole complete justification will necessarily have several elements. "The complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas" would clearly satisfy the "lack of targeting" element, but it would just as clearly fail to satisfy one or more of the other elements. This is not rocket science.
We are talking about this because Israel has extirpated 1% of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating 20% of Hamas. In the pursuit of whatever it is you're trying to prove about that, you tried (clumsily) to apply my arguments to the counterfactual situation where it's 100% instead of 1%. Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, so let's turn your hypothetical around. Let's suppose it was 1 person instead of 1%. Are you of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable -- that Israel would not be justified even in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building?
I left enough of your response to show the literal great lengths you go to avoid actually addressing a question the second time. I apologize for upsetting you.
Of course I addressed it. Explaining why it's a "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question counts as addressing it, and if you thought my explanation was wrong you were free to explain why and you chose not to. But fine, we can do it your way and see where that takes us...
Do you realize that the justification of lack of targeting applies to situation of the the complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas?
No.
Likewise, I do not realize that Santa Claus giving Yasser Arafat coal in his Christmas stocking applies to the situation of the complete extirpation of the civilian population of Israel in the pursuit of eliminating Zionism. I do not "realize" any not-even-wrong failed attempt at constructing a meaningful proposition. "Realizing" is not something one can do to nonsense. Just like "Santa Claus giving Yasser Arafat coal in his Christmas stocking", "the justification of lack of targeting" is not a thing. Those are both noun phrases that do not refer to any phenomenon in the real world. They are fictional constructs.
I see no point in engaging further.
Wise choice. Submitting to being cross-examined on your views was never going to end well for you. Since you are refusing to answer my question, I'll answer it for you. Here's how the discussion would have gone if you hadn't ducked the question.
Option A:
Yes, you are of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and whenever the evil take hostages who can't be rescued by force it is always the duty of good men to do nothing.
Option B:
No, you are not of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable. Israel would be justified in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre, even if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building.
Follow-up question, from me to you: Would Israel be justified in tracking down the five-year-old son of the man who ordered the 10/7 attack, capturing him, tying the boy to a chair in a stadium, and blowing him up, as a deterrent to all Hamas leaders who might ever again order the murder of Israeli noncombatants?
Follow-up answer, from you to me: No. That would not be justified.
Follow-up to follow-up, from me to you. So it turns out you know damn well that intent matters. What a surprise. So give your "Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead." sophistry a rest.
