Hakeer wrote:As they fight there way in, some civilians can flee. Almost nobody gets out alive if you drop the 2,000 pound bomb on the building. That is what make it a war crime. Military vs. Military is not a war crime, even though there are some civilian casualties.
You were the one who brought up ISIS. I said we did war crimes in Vietnam and Iraq.
The US fired several small (250 lb) bombs per target in Mosul to kill ISIS fighters who had taken cover inside civilian homes. It was often necessary to fire these small bombs several times because the first bombing would fail to kill the ISIS fighters, and this "warning" would be used by them to take better cover or flee to neighboring houses, leading to a repeat of the process. It is currently assessed by some US officers that in the end this was more harmful to civilians than just firing a heavier bomb once to kill ISIS fighters right away as more homes needed to be bombed to kill ISIS fighters in this whack-a-mole game of sorts, with most civilians not even being killed by the blast but by being crushed by their own houses as they collapsed.
Are you saying an attacker should still follow this approach now that it's known it will still kill civilians and may, if anything, kill more of them since more bombs would need to be used over a wider surface?
Also, why wouldn't it be military v military if a heavier bomb is used to destroy a military target?