This comment is the equivalent of some guy telling you that you'll be paid in exposure and that the exposure is going to be worth way more than money in the long run, just trust me bro.
Kepabar
joined 1 year ago
'the allies did worse than the Holocaust' is certainly a hot take.
... That is generally how it works where I live, yes.
Police causalities caused by actions intended to stop a felony are charged to the felon and they are held responsible.
Not that I fully agree with the unscrutinized part but your analogy isn't the best.
No.
It's cheaper to out source it this way because as their farmers are contractors they don't have to adhere to the legal responsibilities they would if they ran them in their own.
They can keep their contracted farmers in debt to them indefinitely and essentially have a class of indentured servants.
That's how they used to be in the early days of the Internet. The earliest online multiplayer games like Cyberstrike charged by the hour. Cyberstrike cost six dollars an hour! Games in the BBS days were by the minute.
... Not that I feel there is any reason to bring that back. I am ok with live service games charging a monthly subscription though.
But the idea itself isn't as unheard of as everyone here acts like it is.
It's Louisiana, they would go back to 1800 if they could.
Don't tell this guy about how often Congress devolved into fist fights, cane beatings and duels during our countries early years.
Nah, it was fine.
Same thing applies to humanitarian aid.
If Hamas has hijacked or is operating in those places then they become military targets.
As far as white phosphorus, it depends on how it's deployed. If it's deployed for masking, tracing or identifying then it's legal.
If it's being directly used as an incendiary then that's illegal.
As far as international law goes no this is not a war crime.
If your military takes refuge or uses a civilian center for military operation then that location becomes a valid military target regardless of the risk to civilian lives.
Basically Hamas is commiting the crime by purposefully setting up in these areas. Once they do that then civilian death is acceptable collateral damage, legally speaking.
How are they not?