Comment by mrguyorama

Comment by 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.

Reply View 8 replies

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.

Reply View | 7 replies
- 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.
  
  Reply View | 6 replies
  
  tptacek 2 days ago
  
  4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
  (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
  (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
  (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;
  So far as I can tell, this strike clears all those definitions. I think you may be reading 51(4) to be a prohibition on civilian casualties as collateral to military strikes, but that obviously can't be its meaning --- that would ban virtually all air strikes, for instance, and I'm pretty sure that isn't something the victors of WW2 were going for.
  Am I misunderstanding the argument you're making? It's not unlikely that I could have!
  
  Reply View | 5 replies