this post was submitted on 15 May 2024
252 points (100.0% liked)

World News

46045 readers
4349 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If so then the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Chechnya were all genocides.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When entire civilian populations are bombed or starved, then yes. The US is not free of war crimes. They’re merely immune from the consequences.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not just the US. Chechnya was invaded by Russia. German civilians were bombed by the UK and USSR.

In fact, it's hard to find a large-scale modern war that didn't cause thousands of civilian casualties.

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Absolutely, there were millions of civilian casualties in WWII. The difference here is that there have been, according to Israel, only 273 soldiers killed in ground operation combat vs the 13,000 civilians killed on Gaza’s side. (According to the new, lower estimates.) This is not so much a war as a one-sided beatdown.

[–] DarkGamer@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Are you really suggesting that every asymmetrical war that is conducted successfully is genocide? O.o

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, I’m saying that if a nation has such a huge advantage they also have more responsibility to select targets carefully so as to not kill noncombatants.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

A nation taking lots of casualties has the same responsibilities as one taking few casualties.

That said, the proportion of civilian casualties to the total population of Gaza is comparable to that of Chechnya and less than in Vietnam, North Korea or the East Front of WW2. Unfortunately, civilian casualties are an inevitable part of modern war.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I mean, there isn't any obligation in war to make sure casualties are evenly distributed among both sides.

Normally, a lopsided war ends only when the losing side surrenders.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Genocide" is just another word for "war"?

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

When it's targeted at a specific group of people and there's such a dramatic power imbalance, yes. Whether modern definitions agree or not.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

So if your definition amounts to a highly favorable balance of power, then all countries at war would aspire to make it a "genocide".

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

All wars are targeted at a specific group of people.

Yes, my wording was vague. But say you went to war with Canada, a diverse nation. It would feel different if you broadly targeted all Canadians rather than specifically indigenous Canadians, or black Canadians, for example.

And putting this on the table now: I am Canadian and I recognise my country was built upon its own genocide.

Edit: Someone else feel free to chime in, I still don't feel I am conveying this well

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ok, then why would a hypothetical US invasion of Canada (which today, unlike in 1812, would be imbalanced in favor of the US) be better than an Israeli invasion of Gaza?

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It wouldn't be better but the circumstances would determine whether my mind would immediately jump to calling it that. I'm not necessarily quick to jump to claiming genocide but I won't readily denounce it.

[–] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Fair enough, but if an invasion of Canada is not necessarily genocide then there must be more to it than attacking a less powerful neighbor.