Can you explain the distinction between legal and illegal acts of war?
That's the bit I don't get!
Discussion
When it’s Israel, USA, England, Europe or their friends it’s of course legal.
For everyone else it’s illegal.
You're trying to make a political statement, I'm trying to understand why there is a logical fallacy.
Can you help with the logical fallacy?
You sent me down this rabbit hole this morning! 😳
Law means dick when it’s selectively applied
Sorry 🫂 😂
😂
It made me sad to see so much written on the subject after each successive war. Declarations, accords, conventions, charters and simply rules.
All these rules and still no end to war.
It made my heart ache for humanity.
War is a game you play to win, the winner gets to choose the fate of the looser.
War is an en-mass fight to the death that nature experiences every day on an individual scale.
It's an all or nothing competition, the concept of building laws around this seems absurd to me.
I get why they have tried.
Consensus to not use chemical or biological weapons, cluster munitions, nuclear weapons etc. To try to limit civilian casualties. To not use rape as a weapon of war.
But humans are humans and will invent more effective and no less lethal methods to kill. It’s profitable after all!
And the winners make the rules 😞
If you win a global nuclear war, who’s left to prosecute you? 😳
There are winners in a global nuclear war?
But I get what you mean 😞
I think you're projecting more meaning than is there. Guy probably thinks global nuclear war actually has a possible victory
Winner is an extremely loose and entirely hypothetical definition 😂
😂
It’s all hypothetical!
Aren’t we living in a simulation? 🤣
That is the level that our current state of intelligence allows us to imagine.
The chance we understand the true nature of our universe are next to zero, in the same way an ant in the UK cannot conceive of the concept of Japan.