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).
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.
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.
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).
There are better weapons though. Also, shooting people who are trying to evacuate through your lines is generally considered bad. Compressing the population into a smaller area that you’re using 2,000 pound bombs in is also bad.
Nobody is expecting zero civilian causalities, but this is obviously the most inept army or a professional army conducting a genocide.
But if it were a professional army conducting a genocide as you allege, wouldn’t they be much better at it? This is where I keep coming back to.
I would agree with “professional army that is ranking military value significantly higher than minimizing civilian casualties” but that isn’t genocide.
They don’t have to be doing it systematically to be doing it. And participation would still likely vary between units. It’s an extremely difficult thing to do psychologically. So some units are pulling all the military age men out to shoot and others are just shooting whoever they happen to see that’s not in an IDF uniform. Both are genocidal acts.
OK… so any war crime is genocide now? It really feels like we’re broadening the definition substantially. And don’t get me wrong - war crimes are awful and should be prosecuted. But calling them all genocide feels… dilutive to systematic extermination of a people.
First, I’m not pro anything. I didn’t say anyone should do something. I said there are other parties who could do something.
Second, displacement isn’t genocide by any definition I’ve heard. And again, to be extra explicit, I’m not saying they should be displaced, or that it would be right to displace anyone.
But you can’t call it an open air prison and then call me a genocide supporter when I point out there’s another door to the “prison”?
Oh, okay. The displacement part is just a crime against humanity according to UN definition, the rest of the genocide is covered by “Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”
Russia is bombing no less indiscriminately than Israel, it’s just a much larger theater of war, their aiming capabilities suck and their shit gets shot down a lot before ever reaching anything.
They do the exact same thing day in day out. Taking out a cluster of civilians is probably worth an extra ration of vodka or even worse, a promotion, at this point.
Two wars of terror, if you want. Irony is stone cold dead at this point.
…and just because I’m nice, here’s a little something about the booze, which really was just me joking a bit, but sadly there’s some truth there too. From The Hill:
"…The British Ministry of Defense identified heavy drinking as “particularly detrimental to combat effectiveness” of Russian troops, significantly contributing to the high death rates.
The use of non-alcoholic drugs by combatants, such as opium, heroin, cannabis and amphetamine, has historically been equally widespread, and the Russian military today is no exception."
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).
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
Yeah, I seem to remember a lot of cruise missiles hitting apartments and schools.
Yeah I wish Bill Clinton wouldn’t have done that
That’s exactly what came immediately to mind for me as well.
Now that you mention the apartments bombings, I do remember seeing footage of that. You guys are right
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.
I think it’d be a war crime even if it generally worked.
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).
They’re wildly different wars from a population density per square mile perspective.
So maybe 2,000 pound bombs weren’t the right weapon?
There are no good weapons for densely populated areas. Civilian casualties will always be high in populated urban areas unfortunately.
There are better weapons though. Also, shooting people who are trying to evacuate through your lines is generally considered bad. Compressing the population into a smaller area that you’re using 2,000 pound bombs in is also bad.
Nobody is expecting zero civilian causalities, but this is obviously the most inept army or a professional army conducting a genocide.
But if it were a professional army conducting a genocide as you allege, wouldn’t they be much better at it? This is where I keep coming back to.
I would agree with “professional army that is ranking military value significantly higher than minimizing civilian casualties” but that isn’t genocide.
They don’t have to be doing it systematically to be doing it. And participation would still likely vary between units. It’s an extremely difficult thing to do psychologically. So some units are pulling all the military age men out to shoot and others are just shooting whoever they happen to see that’s not in an IDF uniform. Both are genocidal acts.
OK… so any war crime is genocide now? It really feels like we’re broadening the definition substantially. And don’t get me wrong - war crimes are awful and should be prosecuted. But calling them all genocide feels… dilutive to systematic extermination of a people.
Taken alone, no. But those are just two examples, of many to choose from, to show how genocide doesn’t necessarily mean trains and ovens.
Especially when you’ve cornered that population in an open air prison before bombing them.
Egypt could open their gates if they wanted to.
So Israel can displace the whole population of Palestine? That’s genocide. You’re pro genocide.
First, I’m not pro anything. I didn’t say anyone should do something. I said there are other parties who could do something.
Second, displacement isn’t genocide by any definition I’ve heard. And again, to be extra explicit, I’m not saying they should be displaced, or that it would be right to displace anyone.
But you can’t call it an open air prison and then call me a genocide supporter when I point out there’s another door to the “prison”?
Oh, okay. The displacement part is just a crime against humanity according to UN definition, the rest of the genocide is covered by “Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”
fr Israel is worse than Russia
Russia is bombing no less indiscriminately than Israel, it’s just a much larger theater of war, their aiming capabilities suck and their shit gets shot down a lot before ever reaching anything.
They do the exact same thing day in day out. Taking out a cluster of civilians is probably worth an extra ration of vodka or even worse, a promotion, at this point.
Two wars of terror, if you want. Irony is stone cold dead at this point.
[citation needed]
Do you really need citations over russian war crimes in Ukraine?
Okay.
Wikipedia has a nice summary, feel free to browse the sources yourself.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine
…and just because I’m nice, here’s a little something about the booze, which really was just me joking a bit, but sadly there’s some truth there too. From The Hill:
"…The British Ministry of Defense identified heavy drinking as “particularly detrimental to combat effectiveness” of Russian troops, significantly contributing to the high death rates.
The use of non-alcoholic drugs by combatants, such as opium, heroin, cannabis and amphetamine, has historically been equally widespread, and the Russian military today is no exception."
https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4088951-russia-is-losing-in-ukraine-because-of-its-army-of-addicts/