You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] Wmb102er 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Some good points, especially about the chemical weapons stuff. I'm still not sure about the soldier/civilian thing though. Killing soldiers who are sitting in their bases is generally seen as ok, because they may at some point shoot at you. Thing is, the same can be said for civilians. They may be recruited at some point. They also supply the people pointing guns at you. You also can't ban pre-emptively killing enemy soldiers. It's a sure fire way to loose.

0
0

[–] Krael ago  (edited ago)

The concept of what a war crime is in this context isn't subjective conjecture, but a strict set of definitions laid out by multiple treaties between UN member nations over the last 100+ years (Yes, I know the UN hasn't been around that long, many treaties were grandfathered in). At its core, it's a gentlemen's agreement that amounts to "I won't do X to your guys if you don't do it to mine". When the UN calls something a war crime, they're not stating an opinion, they're citing a specific violation of one of these agreements.

This page contains the full report plus a lot of other information pertaining to the 2014 conflict. The Guardian article linked here doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the evil shit that went down during this.

0
1

[–] Wmb102er 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

OK, so it isn't really a moral issue, but just a matter of treaties? That actually makes a lot more sense. The combination of gentlemen's agreement and war still seems odd to me though.