• Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

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

            • Pennomi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              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.

        • can@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          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.