Nobody expects the state to relinquish power without violence, but that doesn't mean it's OK to cheer clips of massive explosions within lethal range of civilian houses.

I have yet to see anyone share hard evidence that these are targeted at military areas, let alone actually hitting them. Just a bunch of equivocation about military reserves and public opinion polls. Isreal rightfully caught shit for their pager attack being too indiscriminate but an explosion clearing half a city block isn't?

You're just wildly incorrect on all fronts here.

since you were the one talking about nations’ flags

A nation is not a nation state, and a population doesn't have to be a sovereign state to have a flag.

No, they did it in order to hit their targets, which were often cities.

Exactly, to limit collateral damage. Germany (and the RAF's night bombing, to be fair) also targeted cities with strategic war industries, they just cared more about their pilots' safety than civilian lives.

You’re putting words in my mouth.

I'm not at all, I'm pointing out the lack of criticism for clips like the one above. There's not even reserved judgment until we know what got hit and who died, just full throated support based only on the name of the city being bombed. I'm the only one here wanting evidence that these attacks are targeting anything of value and limiting non combatant deaths.

Remember when Israel was criticized for half-hearted pamphlet dropping to warn of barrages? All the scorn at Israel's reports of the use of human shields? The outrage over bombing population centers and refugee camps allegedly hiding rockets? Zionists saying Palestinians deserved bombing because they elected Hamas and had parties celebrating Oct 7 and X% of Palestines supported Y?

I'm seeing the exact same comments in reverse. Just read the comments on this post. But this time nobody bats an eye because the "right" people are dying.