• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    311 months ago

    There are better weapons though. Also, shooting people who are trying to evacuate through your lines is generally considered bad. Compressing the population into a smaller area that you’re using 2,000 pound bombs in is also bad.

    Nobody is expecting zero civilian causalities, but this is obviously the most inept army or a professional army conducting a genocide.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -111 months ago

      But if it were a professional army conducting a genocide as you allege, wouldn’t they be much better at it? This is where I keep coming back to.

      I would agree with “professional army that is ranking military value significantly higher than minimizing civilian casualties” but that isn’t genocide.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 months ago

        They don’t have to be doing it systematically to be doing it. And participation would still likely vary between units. It’s an extremely difficult thing to do psychologically. So some units are pulling all the military age men out to shoot and others are just shooting whoever they happen to see that’s not in an IDF uniform. Both are genocidal acts.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          0
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          OK… so any war crime is genocide now? It really feels like we’re broadening the definition substantially. And don’t get me wrong - war crimes are awful and should be prosecuted. But calling them all genocide feels… dilutive to systematic extermination of a people.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Taken alone, no. But those are just two examples, of many to choose from, to show how genocide doesn’t necessarily mean trains and ovens.