this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2023
107 points (91.5% liked)

World News

32352 readers
412 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So you ignore the actual argument I made, how your logic, evenly applied, would apply to killing medics as well. And you ignore the fact that your opinion here is against the Geneva Convention. You conveniently ignore the part where you don't have to target them to have killing them be a problem; killing them is the problem. And your only retort is whataboutism: "yeah but Russia does bad".

Take a look back at my comment. Apply the reasoning, and tell me: do you think we should allow killing enemy medics? If not, explain to me your contradictory stance.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.

You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?

[–] 133arc585@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No. You are building a massive strawman. I never even said a word about medics.

I guess you don't understand how this works. I'm not building a strawman, as I'm literally describing the Geneva Convention's justification for why your opinion is nonsensical to hold. I'm simply asking you to extend your "logic" to an identical situation that, in my opinion, is more enlightening as to why your argument is faulty. They are both non-combat roles, and the justification for protecting them in a war setting is identical.

You conveniently ignore everything Russia has done. Tell me, is Russia following Geneva conventions and Nuremberg principles?

I see that you don't actually care to have an honest discussion. I haven't mentioned anything Russia has done; I haven't justified anything Russia has done. You think me pointing out that Ukraine has done something wrong, and that your defense of that is bad, is somehow equivalent to defending Russia.

It seems, unless you want to try to actually respond to the points I've raised, that you're content in your disagreement with the Geneva Convention. As such, your faked concern about Russia's supposed violation of the Geneva Convention is just that: faked.

[–] derf82@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My opinion is that Russian journalists are spreading propaganda. That has nothing to do with the Geneva Convention

And you have actively avoided condemning Russia, which speaks volumes.

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Why would they condemn Russia when the article that started this discussion identifies a potential war crime committed by Ukraine and facilitated by NATO. There's lots to criticise Russia for but this ain't it.