>If you put a bunch of civilians into a military vehicle and blow it up, it's not a war crime, since these civilians were inside a legal target.>But if you shoot civilian workers at an arms factory or a military base, it's a war crime, since you were targeting noncombatants.Make it make sense!
>>18287559>>If you put a bunch of civilians into a military vehicle and blow it up, it's not a war crime, since these civilians were inside a legal target.Where did you come up with that? If they are forced into a military vehicle or forced to wear a uniform and killed that doesn't make it not a war crime. If they are fighting against a legal combatant, wether uniformed or not, they are legal targets. I don't recall any examples of your scenario but had it been brought before the war crimes tribunals it surely would have been considered one.
>>18287575I had a debate about this. Privately owned tanks are considered legal targets, even though they'd be only used for tourist rides.
>>18287575>> I don't recall any examples of your scenario but had it been brought before the war crimes tribunals it surely would have been considered one.During the Donbas conflict in the 2010s AFU combatants would be without uniform and their weapons would be placed in city centers so as that any attempt by separatist forces to fight back against the shelling would be war crime against civilians.
>>18287582I am talking about examples of civilians put in a military vehicle and it being destroyed.Yes the example you gave is them trying to manipulate the Geneva Convention laws of war. Technically under the Convention fighting without a uniform (i.e. being a partisan) is illegal and makes you a legal target.
>>18287559>>But if you shoot civilian workers at an arms factory or a military base, it's a war crime, since you were targeting noncombatants.Naturally. If you blow up a factory that can be considered a military target, the civilian deaths were collateral damage. However, if you send in a hit squad that doesn't just blow up the machines, but also deliberately shoots and massacres clearly unarmed noncombatants not taking part in hostilities, it's a clearly illegal and inmoral act.
>>18287600And why exactly is it immoral to shoot arms industry workers?
>>18287616because it was not a situation where they were armed so it was kill or be killed, and there was nothing to be gained from killing the laborers that could not be gained by smashing or confiscating the machines.
>>18287616If you include unarmed workers in the list of acceptable targets just because they're supporting the war effort, you're basically abolishing the concept of a civilian altogether, since basically all sectors of the economy support the war effort in a full-mobilization WW2 style war. A farmer grows food that a soldier will eat, a miner digs up ore that will eventually become munitions, etc.
>>18287559>picthe joke is that he became gay?
>>18287652The clue is in the type of meat he's selling.
>>18287559>war crime>despite there being no clear jurisdiction
>>18287652His wife is Miss Piggy, he's selling pork chops.
>>18287579The tourist rides tend to end in warzones.
It's a concept from a time before the reality of total war set in that was kept because it could've been used by victors to bash the defeated.
