• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
    45·
    1 month ago

    I mean, Amnesty’s whole purpose is to catalogue and condemn anything that leads to a violation of anyone’s human rights. They don’t see pesky things like practical reality or going after the big offenders first as their purview. I’m not sure I’d call that pearl clutching, exactly, but it can come across as whiny if like me you value being given an actual alternative.

    Pretty much any military weapon has the potential to hit someone nearby - even the humble rifle generates stray bullets. Presumably, in their personal life they’re not all absolute pacifists, so they’re alright in principle with using guns anyway, to fight a sufficiently just war.

    Acknowledgement of the elephant in the room that this isn’t remotely a just war.

    • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      32·
      2 months ago

      You’re downplaying human rights organisations and indiscriminate bombings.

      Comparing this to firearms is beyond ridiculous. You aim your “humble” rifle, each bullet.

      https://www.1lurer.am/en/2024/09/20/Death-toll-from-device-explosions-in-Lebanon-rises-to-37-injuries-near-3-000/1190896

      At UNSC, UN rights chief says Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah devices violated international law and could be a war crime.

      “Pearl clutching.”

      I’m not gonna start whatabouting, but I don’t think you’d be that glib about dead 9-year-olds in real life.

      Why do you pretend cowardly indiscriminate bombings with civilian objects, during daytime, weren’t a violation of international law?

      Do you happen to know the law? Oh no? You’re just defending Israel by talking out of your ass against international humanitarian law experts? Yeah, guessed as much.

      https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

      The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 urged parties to armed conflicts in general “not to use methods and means of warfare that cannot be directed against specific military targets and whose effects cannot be limited”.[14] Further evidence of the customary nature of the definition of indiscriminate attacks in both international and non-international armed conflicts can be found in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. In its advisory opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case, the International Court of Justice stated that the prohibition of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets constitutes an “intransgressible” principle of customary international law.

      This definition of indiscriminate attacks represents an implementation of the principle of distinction and of international humanitarian law in general. Rule 12(a) is an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians (see Rule 1) and the prohibition on directing attacks against civilian objects (see Rule 7), which are applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Rule 12(b) is also an application of the prohibition on directing attacks against civilians or against civilian objects (see Rules 1 and 7). The prohibition of weapons which are by nature indiscriminate (see Rule 71), which is applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts, is based on the definition of indiscriminate attacks contained in Rule 12(b). Lastly, Rule 12© is based on the logical argument that means or methods of warfare whose effects cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law should be prohibited.