this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
683 points (93.8% liked)

World News

39151 readers
2369 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


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
[–] [email protected] 93 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (57 children)

[Drops flyers with warning message saying "we will attack soon; flee, those who can!"]

[Attacks the refugee camps, oh and also hospitals]

100% assholes. 👌 Equal to or worse than the Russians, I swear to freaking God.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (39 children)

I don't think I remember hearing about Russians bombing Ukrainian refugee camps (though I could have missed it).

Seems like Putin sees civilians as an inconvenience that get in the way of his goals. For Netanyahu, it seems as though killing the civilians is the goal. I would say that the latter is objectively worse (though they are both pieces of shit).

[–] [email protected] 62 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Russia intentionally bombed a ton of civilian targets with zero military value. It's weird that you don't remember this. There's even a lengthy Wikipedia article specifically about it: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_civilians_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, I seem to remember a lot of cruise missiles hitting apartments and schools.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago

That's exactly what came immediately to mind for me as well.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Now that you mention the apartments bombings, I do remember seeing footage of that. You guys are right

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago

Yeah I wish Bill Clinton wouldn't have done that

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Not to mention eradicating close to the entirety of the military-aged male population in Donetsk and Luhansk by forced conscription.

I might grant Putin though that he's only doing a cultural genocide, that is, the attacks on civilian infrastructure have the actual military goal of breaking resistance -- which is known to generally not work, hence why it's a war crime. He's perfectly fine with people staying alive as long as they bend the knee and become Russian.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

the attacks on civilian infrastructure have the actual military goal of breaking resistance -- which is known to generally not work, hence why it's a war crime.

I think it’d be a war crime even if it generally worked.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That's the pacifist answer but no that's not how war crimes work: The rules of war aren't about avoiding bloodshed, they're about avoiding pointless bloodshed, pointless from the point of winning an armed conflict, that is. If you can shorten a conflict and spare millions of lives by killing a couple thousands of civilians, well, a couple thousand is less than millions. War is erm dispassionate like that, a hard-nosed calculus.

Hence why you also get rules like the ban on hollow-point bullets: They're more likely to kill than to disable. Killing combatants, however, is less effective at binding up enemy resources and thus not a sound military strategy, using them means that you care more about killing people than winning the engagement. If, OTOH, the enemy started killing all their wounded soldiers instead of expending medical resources that reasoning would cease to apply and you'd be justified using hollow points. (Which are btw in ample use by police forces because they ricochet much less, leading to less injured bystanders, but you generally don't have bystanders on the battlefield. Similarly tear gas is allowed for police use but outlawed for war because it could get confused with a nasty chemical attack very easily, possibly leading to a very nasty escalation when the attacked force responds in kind. Also for the record there's plenty of legitimate uses of white phosphorous, tracer rounds and smoke screens all use it, the banned use is as an incendiary weapon anywhere close to civilians but that's not special to white phosphorous, that's a general thing about incendiary weapons).

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (53 replies)