Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why should they play by some foreign made up book just because it would suit the oppressor who massively overpowers you in every aspect? Come on, lets get real, if you defend your homeland from invader any tactic is good tactic. Thats not some higher moral ground just basic logic.

Geneva convention is just a piece of paper, sometimes adhered to by some parties, and thats about it. And thats something coming from a person living and working in Geneva lol. russians keep breaking those rules every day for years on ukraine and not much is happening, is it.

 help



The Geneva Convention wasn't written by oppressors to protect oppressors; it was written largely because of what happens to civilians and prisoners when there are no rules. The protections run both ways: your wounded, your captured fighters, your civilian population all benefit from it. Tear it up and you're not sticking it to the powerful, you're just guaranteeing that nobody on either side has any protection at all.

And yes, Russia breaks the rules constantly in Ukraine. The response to that is not 'therefore rules are worthless,' it's 'therefore we need better enforcement.' A legal system with imperfect enforcement is not the same thing as no legal system; by that logic you'd abolish murder laws because people still get murdered.

'Any tactic is a good tactic' is also, incidentally, exactly what the oppressor says.


> Why should they play by some foreign made up book just because it would suit the oppressor who massively overpowers you in every aspect?

If they refuse to abide by the "foreign book" that dictate the rules of conflict, then I'm not sure how they could legitimately use the foreign book's classification of genocide. Those rules are what dictate how to classify a genocide.


Well they don’t have to agree with all of it. The Geneva convention is (primarily) an agreement between parties that “we’ll follow these rules so we don’t end up killing civilians and razing cities to the ground”. When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

> When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

Remaining the "good guys"?


Of course not. It’s just as wrong for Palestinians to attack Israeli civilians as it is for Israelis to attack Palestinian civilians. If you review this whole thread, you have folks defending Israel, you have folks defending Palestine.

The only difference is that Israel is capable of genocide militarily, and is levelling Palestinian cities.

There are no good guys here.


Because genocide is defined by wholesale targeting of civilians, but if the opposing side uses civilians as human shields then that definition can no longer be applied.

> foreign book's classification of genocide

Why can't they just use their own? Seems silly. Not sure this makes sense.


Then it's not genocide by any definition anyone else uses. I don't see what the confusion is.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: