3 ms·
Not actually a war crime. Directly from the Red Cross article he links: > The purpose of these statements is to emphasize that an attack which affects civilian
by legitster 2y ago
Not actually a war crime. Directly from the Red Cross article he links:
> The purpose of these statements is to emphasize that an attack which affects civilian objects is not unlawful as long as it is directed against a military objective and the incidental damage to civilian objects is not excessive. This consideration is taken into account in the formulation of the current rule by the use of the words “attacks directed against”.
Nobody really has a clear cut definition of "excessive damage". But terrorists in practice do not have any formally recognized military infrastructure. So when fighting terrorism or insurgency groups, all targeted areas are essentially civilian areas.
Anytime someone is trying to quote "war crimes" online, there is like a 95% chance they are talking out of their butts.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoYou’re right. And they didn’t authorize “bombing a civilian apartment building because a target’s girlfriend lived there,” they bombed a building the target was believed to be in. Like, yes, if we start WWIII over Greenland or Canada or whatever, it should be understood that you might die because you were next to where someone important might have been. (It is notable that nobody asked about collateral damage.)