6 ms·

I just want to confirm that people don't think hitting civilian drinking water as retaliation for a military helicopter is normal or ok

roshin 5mo ago
people might not like it if it was targeted, but if it got slightly damaged (and currently functional) as collateral damage to a military target, I assume more people would be okay
- conartist6 5mo ago
  If it was targeted, my understanding is that that action would fit the technical definition of a war crime
  - roryirvine 5mo ago
    It would also be a war crime even if it was merely reckless rather than deliberately targeted.
    - everforward 5mo ago
      This is all wishy washy without an actual court, but I’m dubious this would rise to that standard. From what I can tell, international law requires attacks to be distinct and proportional. Distinct meaning they distinguish between civilian and military targets (you cannot intentionally attack civilian targets), and proportional meaning that the collateral damage to civilians is proportional to the military value of the strike. This probably doesn’t meet that bar. Cutting off water is bad, but 20k people is a fairly small population for this kind of thing and presumably the US won’t stop them from repairing it (that probably would be a clear cut war crime). Presuming Irans government is functioning, this should be extremely hard for those people but probably not lethal. Trucking water around is an option, even if it’s not great.
      - conartist6 5mo ago
        My problem is that this happened after Trump repeatedly and emphatically threatened to target civilian infrastructure. It could be an accident, or it could be exactly what he said he would do.
- Planktonne 5mo ago
  The countries currently bombing Iran have boasted for years of their precision targeting systems. They've also made countless statements that show a willingness to targets civilians and infrastructure [1]. At this point, every direct hit on a school or a water source or a charity being accidental collateral damage just doesn't ring true. Either they've been lying about capabilities (and all the precision strikes were undergone with reckless disregard for human life) or they have the capabilities claimed and are doing exactly what they said they would. [1] One famous example: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-ter...
  - spwa4 5mo ago
    ... and Iran's islamist regime has for 5 decades boasted of committing warcrimes, inside and outside of Iran. Btw: hitting water reservoirs is only a warcrime if the purpose is to kill (or at least replace) a civilian population from a large area. I don't see how this even qualifies that definition.
    - Planktonne 5mo ago
      "But Iran did it!" is not the clinching argument you think it is. If killing civilians is bad for Iran to do, then it's bad for the US to do, and you can't commit the same evils as the ones you're using to justify your actions. You need to have higher standards; "no worse than Iran" is not something the US should aspire to.
      - spwa4 5mo ago
        You misunderstand the argument I'm making. Legislation is only what is enforced, is only it's consequences, otherwise it is about as relevant as pointing out Iran has severely violated the "magic for all" legislation of Equestria. As for standards: they are useless unless they allow for doing what is required to make the other side comply. Or at least, without that standards won't achieve their goal. The world has chosen to not enforce war crime legislation under any circumstances, decades ago. Specifically, the agreement is the Rome statute, which essentially says that no government can ever be accused of a warcrime except in one of two circumstances. One, the government one whose soil it happened agrees to enforce war crime legislation AND asks for a conviction (Iran has not, and will not, do this). Either that or the UNSC convicts you. Other than those 2 situations, war crimes aren't possible. And this is not something the US has chosen but the world has agreed. If any parties are responsible for that, it's Russia and China. By the way, Iran has managed to commit bad enough warcrimes that China, Russia, US, France and the UK all agreed they were guilty of warcrimes. The US has not. Someone call Celestia! Magic for all!
aaron695 5mo ago
[dead]
belorn 5mo ago
There should be two rules in wars. Do not hit civilian infrastructure, and do not put military infrastructure near civilian infrastructure. Both should be a war crime, both during and outside of wars. Military infrastructure should also not be dependent on civilian infrastructure as that blur the line between military and civilian. It is an open question what media and thus we the public should do when nations ignore this. If a nation put military surveillance equipment onto fishing boats, like the Russian shadow fleet did, with some military personal onboard that operate the equipment, does that make the civilian fishermen also military personal, or should the military equipment and personal be treated as civilian since they are in a technically civilian ship? I don't think the question we should ask is if people think hitting civilian drinking water as retaliation for a military helicopter is ok. It is obviously not ok and framing it like that only normalize the idea that hitting civilian targets could ever be acceptable. The only question we should be looking at is if the civilian infrastructure and military infrastructure was intentional built close to each other, thus making this two war crimes.
- tristanj 5mo ago
  Your argument is poorly thought out. All civilian infrastructure is dual-use. Militaries will use civilian roads, highways, bridges, and airports when necessary. Militaries use civilian water facilities, buy fuel at civilian petrol stations, and power military equipment using the civilian electrical grid. Militaries frequently commandeer civilian infrastructure when necessary. Without providing a clear definition of what is civilian infrastructure and what is military infrastructure, all civilian infrastructure can be considered military infrastructure.

roshin 5mo ago

people might not like it if it was targeted, but if it got slightly damaged (and currently functional) as collateral damage to a military target, I assume more people would be okay

conartist6 5mo ago
If it was targeted, my understanding is that that action would fit the technical definition of a war crime
- roryirvine 5mo ago
  It would also be a war crime even if it was merely reckless rather than deliberately targeted.
  - everforward 5mo ago
    This is all wishy washy without an actual court, but I’m dubious this would rise to that standard. From what I can tell, international law requires attacks to be distinct and proportional. Distinct meaning they distinguish between civilian and military targets (you cannot intentionally attack civilian targets), and proportional meaning that the collateral damage to civilians is proportional to the military value of the strike. This probably doesn’t meet that bar. Cutting off water is bad, but 20k people is a fairly small population for this kind of thing and presumably the US won’t stop them from repairing it (that probably would be a clear cut war crime). Presuming Irans government is functioning, this should be extremely hard for those people but probably not lethal. Trucking water around is an option, even if it’s not great.
    - conartist6 5mo ago
      My problem is that this happened after Trump repeatedly and emphatically threatened to target civilian infrastructure. It could be an accident, or it could be exactly what he said he would do.
Planktonne 5mo ago
The countries currently bombing Iran have boasted for years of their precision targeting systems. They've also made countless statements that show a willingness to targets civilians and infrastructure [1]. At this point, every direct hit on a school or a water source or a charity being accidental collateral damage just doesn't ring true. Either they've been lying about capabilities (and all the precision strikes were undergone with reckless disregard for human life) or they have the capabilities claimed and are doing exactly what they said they would. [1] One famous example: https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-terrorists-families https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-ter...
- spwa4 5mo ago
  ... and Iran's islamist regime has for 5 decades boasted of committing warcrimes, inside and outside of Iran. Btw: hitting water reservoirs is only a warcrime if the purpose is to kill (or at least replace) a civilian population from a large area. I don't see how this even qualifies that definition.
  - Planktonne 5mo ago
    "But Iran did it!" is not the clinching argument you think it is. If killing civilians is bad for Iran to do, then it's bad for the US to do, and you can't commit the same evils as the ones you're using to justify your actions. You need to have higher standards; "no worse than Iran" is not something the US should aspire to.
    - spwa4 5mo ago
      You misunderstand the argument I'm making. Legislation is only what is enforced, is only it's consequences, otherwise it is about as relevant as pointing out Iran has severely violated the "magic for all" legislation of Equestria. As for standards: they are useless unless they allow for doing what is required to make the other side comply. Or at least, without that standards won't achieve their goal. The world has chosen to not enforce war crime legislation under any circumstances, decades ago. Specifically, the agreement is the Rome statute, which essentially says that no government can ever be accused of a warcrime except in one of two circumstances. One, the government one whose soil it happened agrees to enforce war crime legislation AND asks for a conviction (Iran has not, and will not, do this). Either that or the UNSC convicts you. Other than those 2 situations, war crimes aren't possible. And this is not something the US has chosen but the world has agreed. If any parties are responsible for that, it's Russia and China. By the way, Iran has managed to commit bad enough warcrimes that China, Russia, US, France and the UK all agreed they were guilty of warcrimes. The US has not. Someone call Celestia! Magic for all!

aaron695 5mo ago

[dead]

belorn 5mo ago

There should be two rules in wars. Do not hit civilian infrastructure, and do not put military infrastructure near civilian infrastructure. Both should be a war crime, both during and outside of wars. Military infrastructure should also not be dependent on civilian infrastructure as that blur the line between military and civilian. It is an open question what media and thus we the public should do when nations ignore this. If a nation put military surveillance equipment onto fishing boats, like the Russian shadow fleet did, with some military personal onboard that operate the equipment, does that make the civilian fishermen also military personal, or should the military equipment and personal be treated as civilian since they are in a technically civilian ship? I don't think the question we should ask is if people think hitting civilian drinking water as retaliation for a military helicopter is ok. It is obviously not ok and framing it like that only normalize the idea that hitting civilian targets could ever be acceptable. The only question we should be looking at is if the civilian infrastructure and military infrastructure was intentional built close to each other, thus making this two war crimes.

tristanj 5mo ago
Your argument is poorly thought out. All civilian infrastructure is dual-use. Militaries will use civilian roads, highways, bridges, and airports when necessary. Militaries use civilian water facilities, buy fuel at civilian petrol stations, and power military equipment using the civilian electrical grid. Militaries frequently commandeer civilian infrastructure when necessary. Without providing a clear definition of what is civilian infrastructure and what is military infrastructure, all civilian infrastructure can be considered military infrastructure.