4 ms·

The bridge is certainly a legitimate military target. However, if indeed a bomb in a civilian-marked truck were used as Russia alleges (I have my doubts based o

by ummonk 4y ago

The bridge is certainly a legitimate military target. However, if indeed a bomb in a civilian-marked truck were used as Russia alleges (I have my doubts based on the footage and pattern of destruction), then it would be an act of terrorism that violates the rules of war (and such an act would be doubly egregious due to the civilians killed as collateral damage in Thai attack).

pydry 4y ago
Whether a truck was used or not 3 civilians were still killed.
- shawabawa3 4y ago
  Collateral damage isn't against any international laws of war as far as I know
  - ummonk 4y ago
    Yes, but if you violate the laws of war in an attack (e.g. if we stipulate that Ukraine did use a truck bomb, either with or without the knowledge of the truck driver), then the entire attack is unjustified and the collateral damage becomes murder.
- atoav 4y ago
  Forgive the cynical response, but: more civilians have been killed for far less. Surgical precision drone strikes at weddings for example, where it turns out nobody there was a terrorist.
  - pydry 4y ago
    For sure they have. The thing that makes me feel sick about this one is that it's an attack that killed civilians that has been widely celebrated. I dont remember this happening before. Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
- throw_a_grenade 4y ago
  As bad as it sounds, it's not against laws of war. For yet more clear example, munition factories are worked by 100% civilians (or close to 100%) and they're still legitimate targets. It's enough that civiians weren't deliberately targeted. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
  - pydry 4y ago
    If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
    - _kbh_ 4y ago
      > If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?. Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
      - pydry 4y ago
        >Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war? It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont. There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.
shepherdjerred 4y ago
> violates the rules of war How many wars didn’t violate the rules of war?
- ummonk 4y ago
  Plenty actually, but they tend to be low intensity border wars.

by ummonk 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

Whether a truck was used or not 3 civilians were still killed.

shawabawa3 4y ago
Collateral damage isn't against any international laws of war as far as I know
- ummonk 4y ago
  Yes, but if you violate the laws of war in an attack (e.g. if we stipulate that Ukraine did use a truck bomb, either with or without the knowledge of the truck driver), then the entire attack is unjustified and the collateral damage becomes murder.
atoav 4y ago
Forgive the cynical response, but: more civilians have been killed for far less. Surgical precision drone strikes at weddings for example, where it turns out nobody there was a terrorist.
- pydry 4y ago
  For sure they have. The thing that makes me feel sick about this one is that it's an attack that killed civilians that has been widely celebrated. I dont remember this happening before. Being reminded that it is legal under our interpretation of international law doesnt make it feel any better. The same would apply to virtually all Russian attacks too.
throw_a_grenade 4y ago
As bad as it sounds, it's not against laws of war. For yet more clear example, munition factories are worked by 100% civilians (or close to 100%) and they're still legitimate targets. It's enough that civiians weren't deliberately targeted. Also see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing, where a train got hit while passing a bridge, which was the real target. 20-55 civilians were dead, but ICTY found no wrongdoing, because the train was just unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and pilot failed to notice it.
- pydry 4y ago
  If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Regardless of the law, I think it's pretty sickening to watch Russians military attacks that inadvertently killed civilians. Im no less revulsed by us doing it.
  - _kbh_ 4y ago
    > If you take an equally liberal interpretation (which they obviously do), there isnt any clear evidence that Russia has broken any laws of war either. Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war?. Cause we have plenty of evidence of that alone, let alone the evidence of Russians directly targeting civilian buildings and evacuation corridors.
    - pydry 4y ago
      >Is raping and torturing civilians against the laws of war? It is, which is why Lyudmila Denisova made up accusations in order to get more weapons for Ukraine. She made the mistake of getting caught doing it and so was fired. A lot of people assume that this was an isolated incident. I dont. There is a lack of independent observers of war crimes (there are satellite photos of dead bodies, but that in itself doesnt prove war crimes were committed) as well as powerful incentives for Ukraine to lie about this on an industrial scale - Ukrainian military supply lines are utterly dependent on western sympathy not drying up.

shepherdjerred 4y ago

> violates the rules of war How many wars didn’t violate the rules of war?

ummonk 4y ago
Plenty actually, but they tend to be low intensity border wars.