Comment by wut42

Comment by wut42 2 days ago

10 replies

still: The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction

mrguyorama 2 days ago

>device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate

Nope, artillery shells are not illegal and you can even miss where you are aiming! We once obliterated an entire French coastal village with naval gunfire on D-Day because information in war is imperfect.

Accidentally killing civilians is not illegal in war! If you have a "valid military target" who takes a cab from the airport, you can airstrike that cab and not violate the Geneva Conventions.

Consider that a nuke that you detonate in the center of a military base that also "just happens" to wipe out the entire city that base is in is not a war crime!

  • wut42 2 days ago

    Yeah no you are targeting somewhere specific even if you miss.

    This was a large scale indiscriminate attack. Which is entirely forbidden in Geneva Conventions.

    • tptacek 2 days ago

      It was a large scale extremely discriminating attack, from all available reporting, right? The Geneva Conventions and ICRC documentation on IHL are online, and have been cited repeatedly on these threads; could you cite the claim you're making, just so we're all clear what it is? People might agree or disagree, but a lot of pointless flaming is driven by people that don't even agree on what they're arguing about.

      • wut42 2 days ago

        Article 51(4 a b c) of Genova.

        I really don't see how it can be a "discriminating" attack when they exploded in shops; groceries; family homes (in the face of a child) etc.