this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2024
54 points (96.6% liked)

World News

39082 readers
3055 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 15 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Oil facilities can be legitimate targets, if they're producing fuels, other petroleum products, or generating electricity, for military purposes. I don't know which facilities are being discussed here, or whether those facilities are primarily military or civilian.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right?

If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I don't know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 month ago

The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally.

Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants.

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

For some people, "war crimes" isn't a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they've painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant.

Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides.