this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
253 points (89.9% liked)

politics

19170 readers
5643 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

During a United Nations Security Council meeting this week, U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield launched a full-throated condemnation of Russia’s bombing of Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital on Monday. The attack was a part of a Russian bombing campaign that killed more than 30 Ukrainian civilians.

“We’re here today because Russia … attacked a children’s hospital,” Thomas-Greenfield said. “Even uttering that phrase sends a chill down my spine.”

Thomas-Greenfield went on to list a string of Russian attacks on other Ukrainian hospitals throughout the war. She described Russia’s aggression as a “campaign of terror” and labeled its attacks on civilian infrastructure as violations of international law. Representatives of other countries, such as the United Kingdom and France, echoed Thomas-Greenfield’s denunciations. (Russia’s ambassador denied responsibility for the Monday bombing.)

“I’m very glad the U.S. is coming out and so vocally condemning all of those actions,” said Jessica Peake, an international law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, referring to Thomas-Greenfield’s comments toward Russia. “But at the same time, we don’t get any language anywhere near as strong as that when we’re talking about Palestinian hospitals, or Palestinian schools, or Palestinian children.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

If a hospital is used as a combat position, it becomes a valid target for attack. You are not prohibited from returning fire just because the attackers are striking from a hospital.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Blowing up a hospital is not morally justified just because you're able to bullshit your way into calling it a combat position. Your use of "prohibited" is a weaselword. Obviously they're not prohibited - this is trivially true since they do it. It's still not morally justifiable.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Oh, certainly. Well, war is hell. It's an inherently immoral practice, one of the most evil things we engage in. When it happens though, it needs to follow a certain set of rules, for a variety of reasons of which morality is just one.

That said, "hospital" is just a word. If the building is occupied by patients and doctors and is not part of the fighting, then I fully agree with you. If it is empty of doctors and patients, and instead a battalion of soldiers is shooting at you from it, it should be blown up. The activities happening determine what happens, not the name and type of the building.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That said, “hospital” is just a word. If the building is occupied by patients and doctors and is not part of the fighting, then I fully agree with you. If it is empty of doctors and patients, and instead a battalion of soldiers is shooting at you from it, it should be blown up.

Adressing only both of these extremes ensure that nothing you said addresses any aspect of reality.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

They're hypotheticals meant to communicate how the Geneva Conventions actually work in real life. Sorry if you don't like it.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The Geneva convention isn't relevant to Israel's current war in Gaza. Blowing up hospitals remains immoral. Sorry if you don't like it.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

War is immoral, everything about it. No exceptions. Humanity does not function based on universal morality though, it functions on law.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There are no laws governing Israel's conduct in Gaza at this moment , and unconditional US support ensures that this will remain the case. You're purposely talking about irrelevant nonsense to deflect from their obviously immoral acts.

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

No, I'm not talking about irrelevant nonsense, I'm talking about war as it pertains to a war. Note, I have said several times that what is happening is very immoral. This is not deflection.

Additionally, international law certainly applies, the ICJ has jurisdiction to try war criminals regardless of where they are.

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That jurisdiction doesn't matter for Israel so long as they enjoy unconditional support from the US. Why do you insist on talking about shit that doesn't matter?

[–] Carrolade@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago

Couple reasons. First, that's just false. The US cannot prevent an ICJ ruling, and it would definitely impact Netanyahu's govt on multiple levels with a great many countries including his own. Second, US support is not actually unconditional, as we saw when the bomb shipments got paused. US support is still partial, and could become either stronger or weaker.