This post exposes nothing new. I'm just reminding you of what you already know: All is fair in love and war.

We are told about the rules of engagement, about war crimes, about crimes against humanity, about genocide, about terrorism. We are led to believe there are legal ways to prosecute a war and illegal ones, and that the whole world needs to work together to shut down the illegal ones.

But every war actor turns to war crimes and terrorism when they feel the stakes are high enough. Even the great powers: The Armenian genocide of 1915, the Holodomor in Ukraine of 1932-33, Germany genociding the Jews and others, the USA dropping nukes on Japan, Churchill carpet bombing Dresden, Israel genociding Palestinians, the RSF in Sudan. The UN doesn't stop any of it. Can't.

What makes my brain twitch is when a Zionist accuses Hamas of being terrorists, as if this is such a conclusive reason to take their side. It's laughably a non-point. Why would anybody expect a genocided people to not cross the line into war crimes to prevent their own extinction, especially when their oppressor is far more powerful and are themselves committing acts of terror? And the idea that the Jews are being genocided by Arabs is equally laughable and not in evidence. They have quite vivid imaginations, and are either delusional to be believing what they imagine, or strategically pretending to be deluded by their imaginings (far more likely). I can simultaneously denounce capturing civilians as hostages and firing unguided rockets into civilian areas, while at the same time seeing Israel as being far more guilty of war crimes. And I do.

I do not think the current conflicts will be resolved well. I think mostly innocent people will be tortured and slaughtered for a long time to come. People in power don't care about other humans. That is how they got into power... stepping where others wouldn't dare to step... on the heads of the innocent.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

💯 the powers that be count on you to fall inline behind labels and if you dare express any logical concerns then you must be one of the bad guys.

War has rules mostly because peace has rules.

If you're planning on interacting peacefully with the other side again, or even being neighbours, you stick strictly to the rules. Argentina and Britain in the Falklands War is my go-to example.

If you're NOT planning on being at peace with the other side ever again, then there is no intrinsic cost to war crimes (other than uniting the other side and making them fight harder.

Sufficiently unaccountable, drug-effected, delusional or narcissistic leadership at times act as though they won't be at peace with their neighbours ever again. This imposes high, complex and quite unnecessary costs on their own countries over time.

Those are the leaders we need to frag, or even better, hang.

Thanks for adding to my thought process. I agree, interacting peacefully after the war is a big factor that many leaders don't consider sufficiently.

I'd say most leaders over weight the immediate future to the distant future, and one of the major reasons is that they won't be in power in the distant future so screw the country then... now is all that matters to them. There are very serious downsides to electing new leaders frequently, term limits, etc, that few people have thought about. Like this near-term bias, and also that a nation can't keep its promises and is no longer trustable in negotiations.

True, sadly.

But there are no true autocracies, leadership is always a complex group activity.

During WW2, Hitler reportedly floated the idea of denouncing the Geneva Conventions, as retaliation after Britain in '41 started (illegally) targeting German search-and-rescue craft and hospital ships.

Wehrmacht leadership reacted very strongly and negatively, so nothing came of it except (arguably) the notorious "Commissar Order".

If only Netanyahu had an officer corps no more immoral than the WW2 Wehrmacht...

It's called the American dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it

-George Carlin

This is where we change from Federal Law to Military Law, and International Law. Personally I just Military Law the most because they are bound and held more accountable due to their Oath to uphold the Constitution. This means tribunals.

Unfortunately as my understanding under military law you are allowed to hit schools, hospitals, and even a UN building.

First and foremost I believe that peace is the way.

Those are fair targets if they harbor enemy combatants conducting intelligence and harbor munitions.

Remember when Russia bombed the "hospitals" in Syria? Who was there?

Why did Israel bomb the UN building in Palestine?

To get back to my original reply we first need to have the evidence. We have collected so much evidence but there are problems with the raw amount, formulating a legal tactic.

Let's face it, many of us have already come to the conclusion that the Bankers are at fault.

That's why Russia bombed the "hospitals."

same in politics - everybody so concerned when the other political party is breaking the law

when your own party is doing it - crickets