Comment by JohnMakin

Comment by JohnMakin a day ago

2 replies

While technically true I think the geneva conventions also address the fact that like, when you target something like a hospital (something that has happened) there’s a high probability of civilian deaths that don’t really fall under “collateral” definitions in the way you’re using it. Surely anyone sane would agree with this, wouldn’t you? The convention addresses this in pretty clear terms. Would you think exploding multiple thousands of devices simultaneously in a densely populated area might hit civilians too? Of course you would. This directly violates geneva convention by any interpretation of what it says, but the amount of propaganda from nearly every major country in this situation makes sane discussions of this impossible, so I’ll probably digress. These threads are cancerous and almost certainly flooded by IDF smurfs, or people unknowlingly spewing smurf propaganda.

varjag a day ago

The devices were very low yield and the vast majority of casualties were the members of Hezbollah network. Even most of those have lived. I don't see how it violates the conventions.

  • thunky 18 hours ago

    So you'd be good with this kind of attack happening in your neighborhood, with your family members killed or maimed?

    Fair game as long as it's wartime and the intended targets are military personnel?