this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2024
663 points (97.4% liked)

World News

37468 readers
1674 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

War crimes are war crimes, but consider this: war crimes are worse if the warring party has the ability to mitigate them, and war crimes are worse if they are for an inherently unjust cause. Applied to this situation, killing civilians is a war crime, but it’s one thing if your best weapon is an unguided rocket, and way worse if you have the ability to make precise strikes against your enemy but choose to blow up an entire apartment building instead to intentionally commit collective punishment. And it’s even worse when you do so because your real goal is to kill all the civilians rather than the one scapegoat you used to try to justify killing them all.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

i would argue neither is worse - but the intent would be much harder to defend against in court when you are also bragging about being able to put a round through a specific window.

It also runs the very real risk of a little war crime being accepted if.... for example you're just "protecting your home" or "the other side is worse" or "you don't have a choice".

[–] bamboo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

War crimes, like other crimes, must be considered in context. It’s ok to shoot someone in self defense charging you with a knife. It’s not ok to blow up an entire apartment building because you want the people living there dead so you can steal their land.

[–] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

In the case of war crime, no they don't.

Shooting in self defense isn't a war crime when applied to a country (article 51 of UN charter), and your second one is because its a direct attack on civilians... and if you're claiming there is one fighter inside its non proportional attack.

Interesting point, article 51 is what was used to justify the US attack the second gulf War, and will likely be use to justify the Israeli response in this one.