4 ms·
> If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal. war crimes usually defined by intent: were civilians targeted intentionally.
by andriy_koval 4mo ago
> If the effect of your actions is a war crime, you are a war criminal.
war crimes usually defined by intent: were civilians targeted intentionally.
- Computer0 4mo agoWere civilians targeted intentionally on 9/11? Or was it just a targeted assassination strike on some bankers? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13_July_2024_al-Mawasi_attack) If I am attacked and legally have the right to self defense, but kill the neighbors "in the process of" defending myself because I fired 300 rounds at the attacker. Is that okay? I didn't do it "intentionally". But it is convenient that I hate them.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- gershy 4mo agoWe likely agree that individual military strikes ought to aim for collateral damage proportional to their war value. For example a strike with potential to kill enemy leadership (rapidly accelerating the end of the overall war) can justify high collateral damage, much higher than would be justified by a strike against frontline troops. With this in mind, I don't follow your example at all. Are those bankers of wartime value? And if they are, is the collateral damage proportional to that value? It's possible there's a lot I don't know about those banker's links to military!