I think it is both important and really difficult for folks to distinguish between 'rampant war crimes' of the sort that Russia, for instance, does in Ukraine as opposed to reduced but still very horrible amount of civilian suffering that a war waged according to law and custom entails.

April 07, 2026 - 03:29 UTC

6
3
426
Um... yeah.
But under the Nuremberg laws, simply starting a war under false pretenses is a War Crime, so every US military action since WWII was technically a War Crime, before the first shot was fired. On whether additional atrocities were and are technically War Crimes you are right.
1
0
0
How was Korea started under false premises?
1
0
3
I think some of this is also a side effect of the seeming diminishing importance of intent vs outcome broadly across society. Most "rules of war" tend to value intent. Accidental civilian deaths vs intentional civilian deaths is a meaningful disinction.
2
0
31
The entire US history of war in the Middle East for my lifetime has been a slew of deliberately slaughtering civilians without ever "intentionally" giving an order to do so, via loose targeting and collateral damage rules.

The resulting erosion of the intent vs outcome distinction is unsurprising.
1
0
2
Growing up in the 90s it felt like society put a strong degree of value on intent on a host of issues including war/collateral damage, that seems to have shifted as villain's often hide beyond claims of good intent even if its obviously a misrepresentation.
0
0
22
With the power of modern weapons and dense urban settlements, even a war waged by angels would involve tremendous civilian suffering.

This is why going to war is bad and we shouldn't do it unless we have absolutely no other choice.

But that's different from cluster-bombing apartment buildings.
3
0
287
I think the failure - or refusal - to recognize that difference has made it hard for some to effectively criticize the situation when, for instance, it becomes clear that the United States is moving across the 'Russia line' from 'war' to 'war-crime.'

Which we've been doing since the boat strikes.
2
0
289
Remember how in the Silmarillion when the Valar finally go to war and they destroy the continent that the elves were fighting over for centuries?

Pretty justified war. Probably killed millions.
0
0
1
The natural through line of this argument is that under these conditions it is impossible to have a war that does not involve war crimes, and as a result all wars except defensive wars are atrocities. This postulate is unacceptable to those in power who are ambitious to increase their influence.
2
0
0
It should also be noted that more than one school has been bombed, and that the USA apparently is doing the same thing as Russia by double tapping.

Which is bombing something, wait a little while until the civilian rescue workers arrive, then bomb the target again to kill those as well.
2
0
10
That's quite a big claim to be accompanied by an "apparently". Source ?
2
0
1
Don't forget the university they hit, too.
0
0
3
I think we can distinguish one from the other without supporting either
0
0
1
I used to make a similar argument, but between the boat killings and threats to civilian infrastructure (both declared legal) I’m having my doubts.

Lawyers can write opinions justifying anything.
1
0
6
The boat killings are not in an armed conflict. They are simply murders carried out by the armed forces of a state.

Hitting civilian infrastructure can be a war crime if disproportionate, not justified by military necessity or motivated by an aim to cause suffering to civilians - which Trump says.
2
0
9