Not according to FIFA

I’m not saying you’re wrong. But man haves lots of people who don’t know what a war crime is really devalued the accusation. So much so I read yours and I just assume it isn’t.(again idk)

Will you take the ICRC's word for it? https://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/civilian-objects

We'll make Hegseth regret it deeply when the time comes for his trial, but right now I don't know that there's much to do about that fact.

Many said the same thing during the G.W Bush years. Nothing happened.

I and a lot of other centrist-leaning folks are radicalized now in a way we weren't then. Perhaps it still won't happen, I don't have a crystal ball, but right now I will only vote for primary candidates who promise to prosecute Trump's goons and plan to reject the legitimacy of any future government that does not follow through.

>plan to reject the legitimacy of any future government that does not follow through.

How might you do this?

This line of thinking did not end very well for the Roman Republic.

Indeed it did not. But Trump and the members of his administration have announced, repeatedly and explicitly, that they hate me and wish me harm. So I can't accept being governed by them or by a system that tolerates them. If they decide they'd like to apologize, and offer some explanation for how I can be sure they won't return to their misdeeds, perhaps we can hear them out.

> If they decide they'd like to apologize, and offer some explanation for how I can be sure they won't return to their misdeeds, perhaps we can hear them out.

Nothing short of life in prison for the ones that plead guilty will accomplish that.

So America can put other countries' leaders on trial - like the Nazis in Nuremberg, or Saddam Hussein - but not their own, for war crimes.

Shouldn't. But the checks and balances are not checking him.

That's dual use infrastructure. Its also used for military and goverment purposes, right? The same as China providing weapons components to Russia, masking them as "civilian".

"The Russians did it as well" is not a fantastic excuse for a war crime… You might want to think this through a bit more.

What's the problem. The Russians do stuff that you say are "war crimes", and what happens to them? Nothing. So why should anyone care if some person on the internet says these are war crimes? There's obviously no penalty against doing them, so they're not really war crimes.

Not being punished for something doesn't mean it isn't a crime, and doesn't mean it isn't wrong.

Children have a more developed sense of ethics than that.

Remember that war crimes were defined to protect civilians. It's usually better for a civilian to be on the losing side in a war with no war crimes, than the winning side of a war with many war crimes.

> So why should anyone care if some person on the internet says these are war crimes?

Attacking civilian infrastructure is defined as a war crime by the Geneva Conventions. It's not something a person on the internet made up.

That's all nice and well, but what exactly is the point if it's not going to be enforced *at all*? So we can feel smug and superior?

>"That's dual use infrastructure. "

Especially desalination plants (your sunshine promised to bomb those as well).