• Weirdmusic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Ah, of course, that icon of non partisan high brow news and information the World Socialist Web Site

            • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 hour ago

              Semantics.

              So what? You’d be fine with the title if it said “killed in action” or something like that?

            • Saleh
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Assasinations of individuals using perfidity are illegal under the Geneva convention. It is explicitly mentioned in the article. For a more detailed look read through this:

              https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/

              Note that Westpoint is an American military academy. I hope this removes your worries of Russian trolls.

              • Skua@kbin.earth
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                Please stop misreading (or misrepresenting, whichever it is) this source. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, the only definition of perfidy given in the Geneva Conventions is the invitation and betrayal of confidence. To quote your link:

                Treachery comprised a breach of confidence by the attacker in a situation where the victim had reason to trust that attacker. In that sense, it foreshadowed the distinction between ruses and perfidy that would appear in 20th-century treaties and customary law of war.

                • Saleh
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  6 hours ago

                  This is not true, see the reply to the prohibitions around booby-traps, which explicitly notes them to be devices that can constitute treachery and perfidy. Which of course they are.

                  I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack, especially as treachery originates, as the article describes, from an understanding of “chivalry”.

                  • Skua@kbin.earth
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 hours ago

                    Because, as I have already said to you, the device was manually triggered according to Russia. This makes it definitionally not a booby trap. If that did count as a booby trap, then a sniper waiting for someone to leave cover would be a booby trap, which is clearly nonsense.

                    I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack

                    Because the Ukrainians are under no obligation to announce what they are doing to the Russians and are therefore not betraying anything. It is not a war crime to employ stealth. It is perfidy to invite trust and then betray it, as I have pointed out to you in the Geneva Conventions and your source several times.