![Nazi lives DO matter according to the mods of [email protected]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2cd108d-170e-429d-bb92-f6f2bbf6bf4a.jpeg){kind=link}
Not really “powertripping”. Just pathetic. Consider this a notice to avoid feddit.org… I’ve unsubbed and blocked the instance.
We can’t dehumanize fascists for their choice to dehumanize everyone for things outside their control though, because that would be mean, and hurt their sociopath feefees!
Europe stool idly by throughout the 1930’s “tolerating” fascism, and the Nazi’s killed over 100 million people. Don’t make the same mistake as the radical centrists of history. Fascists will not afford you the same tolerance or courtesy.
That was a war. He also didn’t check if German soldiers were party members or not.
What do you think the new Nazis are planning? A tea party?
Once a war has started, killing is morally acceptable, not before. Even then, only if it’s necessary to achieve military objectives. You don’t kill people for their ideological beliefs, but to stop their ability to act and remove them from power. Mass murder can never be the goal for anyone who believes in human rights.
Wars aren’t won by killing soldiers. They are won by stopping the enemy‘s ability to act. An army can’t fight without fuel, food, and ammunition.
That is a very strange and self-contradicting hill to die on.
That follows very clearly from the declaration of human rights and international humanitarian law. It’s not contradictory at all.
Firstly, citation? because as i understand it “killing is morally acceptable in war” isn’t in the universal declaration of human rights.
Secondly, even if it was, there is no magic attribute of those declarations that makes them immune to contradiction.
Rights need to balanced against each other in practice of course.
You can find that in international humanitarian law.
So contradiction is possible as i have said and balance would require contextual interpretation, in practice.
Absolute statements such as :
and
Can be contradictory, depending on context.
I wasn’t challenging your interpretation, though i do think it’s naive and idealistic to the point of impracticality, i was pointing out that your statements could be considered contradictory.
While I’m at it, i missed a false dichotomy as well :
Those things are not mutually exclusive.
That’s a large amount of text to sift through, if you could give me a hint to where it specifies moral authority before and after an official declaration of war i’d appreciate it.
Seems we agree mostly.
A formal declaration of war isn’t necessary for international humanitarian law (IHL) to apply. Geneva Convention article 2
Declaring wars has fallen out of practice since the foundation of the UN, whose Charta makes wars of Agression illegal. IHL, e.g. Geneva Conventions, also applies to non international armed conflicts.
The best resource to learn about IHL is the database of the International Committee of the Red Cross.