3 ms·
No, this is not what I said. It's so far from what I said or even implied, I'm not even sure how to explain it in a way you won't completely twist around. I gu
by mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
No, this is not what I said. It's so far from what I said or even implied, I'm not even sure how to explain it in a way you won't completely twist around.
I guess this will suffice: a nuclear assault by the Russian state, on Russian soil, is not "two killers shooting eachother"; whether they're aiming for Wagner group is irrelevant, since it would also kill thousands if not millions of civilians. Hence, it is an act of genocide.
I thought this was completely obvious, so I left it implied, but clearly things need to be spelled out to the nth degree around here.
- watwut 3y agoGenocide is not defined by number of victims, but rather by intent. If the actual target is Wagner and civilians are "side victims" then it does not fall into genocide definition. If your intent is to destroy some group in population, for them to not exist, then it becomes genocide. Even if you fail to kill that many people of use non lethal methods.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y agoOh, you're right, I change my mind. It would be hilarious after all. What point are you even trying to make here?