• corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    15 days ago

    Someone go through the GC and tell me how this isn’t a war crime now? This seems a lot like napalm or WP.

    Yes, Russia’s worse, and we all know it. But when we’re done fighting monsters we shouldn’t have become them.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Why would it be a war crime? Just can’t use the chemical payloads over civilian populations like Russia was during their initial campaigns.

      Use of napalm also isn’t a war crime, the context of targets is what makes it one.

    • Apollo42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 days ago

      Can you point out the part of the geneva conventions that make using incendiary weapons against military targets in non civilian areas a war crime?

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      15 days ago

      Yes, Russia’s worse, and we all know it. But when we’re done fighting monsters we shouldn’t have become them.

      When you are fighting for your survival from an enemy who has stated their goal is genocide of your peoples, you can do whatever the fuck you want to defend yourself from them.

      Becoming the monster would be turning around and invading a smaller country.

    • michaelmrose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      15 days ago

      The reason to avoid incendiary weapons near civilians is the heavy collateral damage to said civilians. It’s no more illegal to burn enemy soldiers than fill their torsos full of shrapnel nor their bellies full of lead nor any of the other horrible things we do to enemy soldiers.

      It’s not illegal why should it be?