3 ms·
But of course you're not arguing that collateral damage proves war crime?
by gershy 4mo ago
But of course you're not arguing that collateral damage proves war crime?
- t0mpr1c3 4mo agoI would expect the UN to investigate what the IDF defines as collateral damage and draw their own conclusion. Their conclusion is genocide. I'm not sure all the facts are in yet in relation to Ukraine, but I do not anticipate that Putin will be getting his yacht back in the immediate future.
- andriy_koval 4mo agoWould you accept opinion that UN is politicized org which does work of varying quality and its conclusion can't be accepted as ground truth without trivial checks?
- t0mpr1c3 4mo agoI do not accept your opinion, or assertion, that "harming civilians is the norm" nor the implication that normative violence serves as any kind of license or justification.
- andriy_koval 4mo agoHarming civilians is absolutely the norm in warfare through all humans history, all/most nations including likely yours practiced it in multiple points of time. Its also norm pretending that its bad while actually practicing it. The question was specifically about genocide allegations, and blind trust in UN sub-orgs reports.
- gershy 4mo agoNote "the UN" has no unified voice on an absence or presence of genocide - instead it's voiced by individual UN inquiries. Only the ICJ can legally convict a state of violating the genocide convention.