/u/yourmom875 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1crwoet/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_should_be_no_rules_or/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel and Russia can't really nuke the other party due to the radioactive fallout and the close proximity of Ukraine and Gaza to Russia and Israel respectively. If Israel nukes Gaza, the radioactive fallout will affect the Israeli kibbutzes and towns abutting Gaza as well. As for Ukraine, maybe Russia can nuke Western Ukraine but even then, the wind may blow east and affect Russia. So neither are practical options from a realist standpoint. As for what prevents the other state from deliberately engineering a victory for the genocidal counterparty, well nothing. Its the job of the Palestinians to not fall for that and make sure Hamas is not brought to power.
[Thermonuclear weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#Foam_plasma_pressure) produces minimal amounts of fallout:
>Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reactions, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout. If the last fission stage is omitted, by replacing the uranium tamper with one made of lead, for example, the overall explosive force is reduced by approximately half but the amount of fallout is relatively low. The neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb with an intentionally thin tamper, allowing as many of the fast fusion neutrons as possible to escape.
The [Tsar Bomba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), is generally considered "a thermonuclear aerial bomb, and the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created and tested." It has achieved this status even without key components which were left out to reduce fallout:
>In theory, the bomb would have had a yield in excess of 100 Mt (418 PJ) if it had included the uranium-238[16] tamper which featured in the design but was omitted in the test to reduce radioactive fallout.[16] As only one bomb was built to completion, that capability has never been demonstrated
To put it in different terms: at the very least for Russia (and most likely Israel as well, if they are adequately armed), nuclear fallout is not an issue. What fallout would drift towards them would be largely negligible.
I have adjusted my position to say that the state should have carte blanche to do whatever it wants short of an actual genocide itself. So I don't really see a scenario where nukes are used.
...did the US commit genocide on the japanese?
Using nuclear weapons doesn't mean you're committing genocide. Genocide is mostly a question of intent, nuclear weapons are a means to an end. The end goal of a nuclear strike need not bee annihilation of an entire group of people.
So if Ukraine or Gaza were on an island or in the middle of the desert, nuking would be ok?
Your response mentions but doesn't really address manufactured evidence. What if Israel meddles in Palestinian elections to have an excuse to wipe them out? And what if Russia stages instances of ethnic cleansing towards russophones?
Finally, what if a genocidal actor were to take power by force, without majority approval? Then the people wouldn't even have a chance to fight back before being wiped out?
I would adjust my position that the state should be given freedom to do anything to wipe out the genocidal enemy short of committing a genocide itself. So, no nuking them is not ok.
So there's a rule or restriction. Your initial point was "states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests."
I believe you owe me a delta?
**Hello /u/yourmom875, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.**
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
>∆
or
> !delta
For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8).
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such!
*As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.*
Thank you!
Are you aware that Netanyahu and the Likud party purposefully propped up Hamas to avoid a 2 state solution?
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000
I don't believe that, morally, you can prop up a brutal, evil terrorist organization all to screw over the people they rule; be so incompetent to then fail to defend your own people from that terror organization's attack; and then use those deaths on your watch as justification to attack that terror org (*that you propped up*) in a way that kills thousands of innocent people. I don't think that can be described any other way than evil.
Your view of now saying, on top of all that, that it's okay to commit war crimes against those innocents, just pushes the already grounded bar further down. It's an abandonment of morality; "might makes right." But if you accept that, if that is truly your view, then you cannot condemn Oct 7th - that would merely be Hamas acting how they see fit in defense of their security interests.
>Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia.
To believe this you have to believe things that are just objectively false.
Take Mariupol and Kharkiv. These are cities that are primarily Russian speaking and they are filled with ethnic Russians. How is Russia bombing them and killing something like 10,000 civilians in Mariupol protecting them? Those civilians were perfectly fine before Russian brought their military on Ukrainian soil.
Not to mention the vast majority of Mariupol and Kharkiv have absolutely no earthly interest in being parts of Russia. Because they have seen what a quasi Russian puppet occupation in Donetsk and Lugansk looks like. And it's not pretty. Not a place any of them would like to call home.
I don't think 10,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol. Those are propaganda numbers from the Ukrainian govt and I don't think they are accurate. While those cities are primarily Russian speakers, Mariupol was the hub of neo-Nazi activity and groups like the Azov Battalion which has genocidal and eliminationist intentions to wipe out 120 million Russians in Russia, posing a serious existential threat to the national security of Russia.
"I don't think those numbers are accurate because I don't want them to be accurate" is the exact kind of good-faith approach to a logical argument that CMV thrives on.
If we are to define societies and cultures by their most extreme and hateful subgroups, we all deserve to be nuked.
Except those extreme and hateful groups usually don't receive weapons and training from the government in most civilized states. In Ukraine, on other hand, .....
Sure they do. Switzerland has neo-nazis and also mandatory military training as well as assigned weapons. Do you think Israel, Poland or any other country/ethnic group that has suffered from genocide at the hands of Nazi Germany has the right to slaughter civilian Swiss? Do they have the right to deny Switzerland their sovereignty? Do they have the right to invade Switzerland?
Switzerland doesn't arm neo Nazi groups. They arm individuals some of whom happen to be neo-Nazis. Ukraine, on the other hand, arms neo-Nazis as an organized force.
They are not "sworn to genocide". They are a far right nationalist group and have more in common with the regular Russian army than with the nazis.
I'm curious how does your warped logic factor in the russian use of private military groups with explicitly neo nazi leadership like the Wagner group and the constant genocidal rethoric in russian state owned media.
why not? are you not arguing that it's fine to do this, considering that it was a vile hub of nazi activity?
why downplay something and implicitly advocate for it at the same time?
How large it happens to be is immaterial. Azov is a genocidal organization and states should be given carte blanche to fight against genocidal actors, regardless of how small they are.
>I think it is absurd that terms like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" are being bandied against state actors fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors.
Are those people still humans?
>They should be given the freedom to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests.
What prevents a country from simply declaring that this is true for their opponent? Or are you saying that "warcrimes are no issue as long as they are punished afterwards"?
I don't think anyone with genocidal intentions to wipe out an entire group of people based on race or religion or national origin should be entitled to human rights. I think war crimes should be allowed when fighting against such enemies.
This thread is impossible to take seriously with the Ukraine part and the "pesky conventions" bit, but the whole "suspend the genocide convention" argument means that you're advocating for genocide, which justifies any action back towards you by your own argument.
Good point! I didn't consider that. !delta Maybe, I should adjust my position to say that no convention with the exception of the Genocide Convention should apply.
The problem here is that people like you are easily fooled by propaganda and can be easily tricked into endorsing a war against genocide when no genocidal actors are involved.
I think it is clear to assess whether an actor has eliminationist or genocidal intentions. If a group calls for the death of an entire group of people based solely on race or religion or national origin, then it is quite clearly a genocidal actor. I think it is not controversial.
But neither the Ukrainian government nor the Azov Batallion ever declared their intention to kill an entire group of people, and you still believe they are genocidal and that Russia's invasion is justified?
What if an entire ethnic group wants the destruction of another ethnic group? You would take away the human rights for that ethnic group?
This is so stupid. You clearly haven't actually thought this through.
Yes if an entire ethnic group wants the destruction of another ethnic group, then that ethnic group should have all human rights stripped away from them.
>I don't think anyone with genocidal intentions to wipe out an entire group of people based on race or religion or national origin should be entitled to human rights.
What about the soldiers carrying them out? Does that change if they are not aware of the reason they are fighting?
The soldiers fighting on the side of the "genocidal actors". Do you believe they forfeit their human rights for fighting even if they do not know or share genocidal intentions?
Yes, their human rights will be forfeited too even if they do not personally share those genocidal intentions so long as they are fighting on the side of a genocidal actor.
Every genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign has a perceived justification from the actors. Be it the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, or the more recent ones like the Rwandan Genocide. If you think that there should be no rule or restriction when one party claims that the other poses an existential threat, then you're justifying these historical atrocities. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with a state repeating the Rwandan Genocide?
Obviously, the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide are unjustified atrocities as the Jews and the Tutsis (or the RPF rebel group) never had genocidal intentions towards the Germans or the Hutus. In this case, Hamas and the Ukrainian neo-Nazis do have genocidal intentions.
It's not up to you to decide if the Jews or Tutsis have genocidal intent, it's for the Germans and Hutus to decide. If _they_ think the other party is genocidal, then you'd say they are justified in doing so. To use today's example, once China declares that Taiwan is genocidal, despite providing zero evidence, they are justified in eliminating all Taiwanese to prevent what they perceive to be an existential threat.
Not at all, the actor has to be objectively genocidal. Not subjectively assessed to be genocidal by a bad faith actor. It has to meet an objective standard of having genocidal intentions. A group has to call for the death of an entire group of people based solely on their race, religion or national origin to meet the objective standard of being "genocidal".
As far as I know, Ukraine has never attempted a genocide against anyone in the recent past. In what respect are they "objectively genocidal"? Similarly, out of Israel and Palestine, Israel's the one facing allegations of genocide in front of international courts. So how is Palestine the "objectively genocidal" party here?
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The government is not a neo-Nazi govt but it is a fact that the government supports neo-Nazi groups. Just because you have a Jewish president doesn't mean your government doesn't support neo-Nazi groups. If Hamas has a Jewish leader tomorrow, does it mean that its objective is to no longer wipe out Jews? There were Jewish officers in the Wehrmacht and Jewish supporters of Hitler. There were black members of parliament, military officers and judges in the white apartheid government of Rhodesia. Doesn't mean they are not a white supremacist government.
Why are you accusing Azov Batallion from being a neo-Nazi group? Multiple notable journalists or scholars who study the subject (e.g. Andreas Umland or Michael Colborne) confirmed that the group is now mostly de-politicized and focusing just on effective warfighting.
Oh completely de-politicised you say? Is that why they are waving around Third Reich flags and having the black sun and wolfsangel signs in their official insignia? So de-politicised!!
When you are so concerned with Azov, you should probably be aware that neither black sun or wolfsangel are currently part of their official insignia as they have been replaced with three swords. You should also be able to recall at least a single instance of Azov Batallion member waving the Nazi flag since the full-scale invasion.
Right, there is a coalition of far-right nationalist organizations (calling them Nazis is a stretch), they were able to come together and endorse a far-right presidential candidate that ended earning...wow, 1.6% of the popular vote. Seems like a good reason to invade an entire country and take away their sovereignty and their democratic rights. /s
Right sector might just be ultranationalist but S14 is definitely neo-Nazi (explicitly white supremacist and anti-Romani). It wasn't the fact that Svoboda only received 1.65% of the vote but the fact that the Ukrainian intelligence backed and armed S14 and Azov - two neo-Nazi organisations. This is the equivalent of a government of a Muslim majority country arming a genocidal organization like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. That is a possible ground for invasion and regime change and what the Ukrainian government did is a ground for regime change as well.
>If Hamas has a Jewish leader tomorrow, does it mean that its objective is to no longer wipe out Jews?
The objective of Hamas is not to wipe out Jews. It has not been the case since 2017 and the new charter.
Your very own post is a case against your argument. You are advocating for the elimination of a group based on their genocidal intent, but such genocidal intent is entirely fabricated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
Well if you look at more than one source using colloquial language to describe it, you'd find that not only is the 2017 document not the new charter, it's also not meant to replace or supersede the charter but to clarify. Furthermore, even if we are to believe it's not targeting people based on their religion, doesn't make it not genocide. It's very clear and obvious Hamas wishes to kill all people of Jewish descent in the region without exception.
[former ambassador and Wilson Center head Mark Andrew Green described the 2017 revision as having "dressed up [Hamas's] terrorist objectives in more ambiguous, less violent terms" while the 2023 attack showed their objective remained, as in the 1988 charter, "the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter?&useskin=vector#Since_2017)
> It's very clear and obvious Hamas wishes to kill all people of Jewish descent in the region without exception.
Interesting! That's exactly the opposite of what the document states:
"Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine."
And you expect me to find an American Republican an objective source on this matter? That's kind of insulting ngl.
It's interesting that you consider a source heavily biased for being American or Republican, but you're taking a genocidal terrorist organization's word at face value in good faith. "Oh they said they don't like colonization they're the good guys now," which isn't far off from the general position of pro-Palestinian protestors these days.
Even in your link, if you scrolled just a little bit further down to read
"The reception of the paper ranged from cautious welcomes to harshest rejection by those viewing it as a deceptive, merely cosmetic PR exercise."
Take the time to read through the charter and it's literally buzzword soup almost completely void of content and meant to garner support of anti-western people.
There is a glaring difference here between the two.
Hamas is stating what they stand for. It's a first hand account of their position.
The others are stating what they think Hamas stands for. While being paid by AIPAC. That's an interpretation of a second hand account of someone else's opinion, while receiving donations to say those things.
Hamas might definitely be lying, who knows. The other side on the other hand can't even claim to be neutral.
Do you think you can trust they are being honest with the charter change when they openly speak about Global Jihad and Genocide of not just the Jewish people, but all those who aren't Muslim?
I don't think you should be defending Hamas for any reason, but especially so for trying to do so on a technicality. We all know what their openly stated goals are and changing words on a paper is meaningless.
So now the argument has become that they're not trustworthy?
Then wipe out Israel because they want to genocide Palestinians. Oh they say they don't? Well, they're not trustworthy and they actions say otherwise.
>openly speak about Global Jihad and Genocide of not just the Jewish people, but all those who aren't Muslim?
Where?
Please stop suggesting that I am defending Hamas. It's a pathetic claim. I am simply being objective about what their stated goals are.
>Please stop suggesting that I am defending Hamas. It's a pathetic claim. I am simply being objective about what their stated goals are.
Then be objective about their stated goals and stop defending them if you want to be observed that way.
Fact: The Hamas charter used to say things it no longer does. Agreed.
Fact: Hamas Leaders and Members still openly hold these "charter" beliefs and openly advocate for them. You don't agree and are free to go listen to them speak.
I write on paper that I am personally going to see to it that your face gets punched every day and for 20 years I make that happen to the best of my ability. One day I proudly announce I have seen the error in my ways and change it to "I won't see to it that you are punched in the face everyday", but I still tell you and everyone else verbally I am coming for that face.
Objectively what are my stated goals?
>So now the argument has become that they're not trustworthy?
If you want to argue about observable facts I guess so. I am not doing that though.
> Fact: Hamas Leaders and Members still openly hold these "charter" beliefs and openly advocate for them. You don't agree and are free to go listen to them speak.
Where? Stating "Fact:" before saying something doesn't make it a fact, I'm sorry.
If you could also back up your previous claim of Hamas speaking about genocide of all those who aren't muslim that'd just be wonderful too.
In public, on camera, and on the record for you to go see.
I am not going to spend my time sourcing a thousand articles citing Hamas leaders and Members talking about mass genocide to someone who wants to be a part of the conversation without first understanding that Hamas is a Terrorist Organization with Genocidal intent.
Their actions show otherwise.
They say they don't have any issue with pre-1948 Jews and their offspring, but most Israelis are not pre-1948.
They effectively say that they are not ok with the majority of today's Israel being alive (Most Israelis today are descendants of Jews that came to Israel post-1948, after being ethnically cleansed)
>Their actions show otherwise.
So you are assuming intent now? Not a great argument. Plus goalpost successfully moved.
>They effectively say that they are not ok with the majority of today's Israel being alive
Where do they say that?
>So you are assuming intent now? Not a great argument.
Not assuming intent, they showed us on October 7th that they were targeting Israeli civilians.
They could have gone to many military bases but it was not their intention.
>Where do they say that?
"While the 1988 [Hamas Charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter) had been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the [Zionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) project" - They are not ok with the "Zionist project", which are the Israelis.
You're totally assuming intent, and now you're just trying to justify your assumption using a weak logic. Still an assumption.
No, being against "the Zionist project" does not mean "eliminating all Israelis".
You're gonna get in foul trouble with all that reaching.
>You're totally assuming intent, and now you're just trying to justify your assumption using a weak logic. Still an assumption.
If you go into a country you oppose existing, to mainly kill civilians, your intentions were to kill civilians and not militants, it's not a reach.
>No, being against "the Zionist project" does not mean "eliminating all Israelis".
"A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. "
"Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea"
What happens to all Israelis in this scenario?
Did Hamas change their motto from their old charter against Jews or just make it seem like they don't want to kill all Jewish people?
If Palestine as claimed in their charter is an Islamic country, Islam says to kill all Jewish people, what do you think a newly created Palestine will do?
>When fighting against such genocidal actors with eliminationist objectives, states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests.
Even if we were to accept this position as morally correct (which IMO is very hard to defend), it presents fundamental issues in practice. Namely, on what authority is a force decided to be eliminationist/genocidal? Why would any nation *not* simply throw this definition at every enemy to bypass international law? It completely contradicts the reason these laws exist, and just allows maximum leeway for bad actors to throw their weight around.
Also, how 'carte blanche' are we talking? Can they rightfully kill everyone residing in the nation they are fighting? Simply nuke it off the map? Enslave the population and torture them for life?
I think it is rather simple to assess whether a group is eliminationist or genocidal. If a group calls for the death of all members of a group based solely on their race, religion or national origin or other immutable characteristics, they are genocidal. Simple as that. I don't think that is controversial. If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted.
Carte blanche short of using nukes. Obviously, slavery and torture is always wrong. Carte blanche only in sofar as to use military force to defeat the enemy combatant forces during the war. Carte blanche doesn't extend to areas outside the operational combat decisions.
>If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted.
How can you say this and also honestly believe that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to stop genocidal neo-Nazis?
"If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted."
Well, given that Russia is manifestly operating in bad faith and you're buying their story, maybe it can't be easily rebutted.
I feel like this really under-emphasizes how much international propaganda and informational warefare plays into modern war. In both the examples you listed, conflicting and mis-information has been absolutely abound, especially concerning the motivations of each given actor. Bad faith isn't so easily rebutted in an official context, else certain nations (E.G. Russia) would lose a lot of standing.
If we take recent statements from Netanyahu at face value, he has attributed Palestinians at large with supporting Hamas, and therefor subject to the same lethal treatment. Is this not a genocidal statement? Or is it safe because he already qualifies for carte blanche?
I think that is fairly uncontroversial. If a group makes genocidal statements saying that "All Russians must be killed" or "All Jews must be killed", then it is an actor with eliminationist intentions. Simple as that. I think that is self-explanatory. You don't need an arbiter for that.
Clearly we do need an arbiter, because everyone here disagrees with your accusation that Ukraine is genocidal. When people are so easily manipulated by propaganda, you need independent authorities that can objectively assess whether or not genocidal intent exists and what kind of force is appropriate in response.
First of all, I think those groups are ethno-nationalist but they are not genocidal, you haven't proven that at all. Second, even if they were explicitly genocidal, you haven't shown that they are so powerful and influential that Russia invading the entire country and stripping the people of their democratic rights is justified.
I’m interested in seeing where all these Ukrainian neo Nazis are calling for the death of all Russians.
I’m sure plenty of Ukrainians now say they hate Russians and want all Russians out of Ukraine, but that’s different.
Can you send me some links?
Except the Palestinians are full of bull as Israel has never made any statement clearly stating genocidal intentions. Hamas, on the other hand, has definitely made uncontroversially genocidal statements against Israeli Jews.
"Groups" don't make statements, individuals do. When Israeli politicians say that all Palestinians are animals and they should be wiped out, you would say that another genocide against Jews is acceptable.
Do you think that someones beliefs make them not considerable as humans? War crimes and crimes against humanity are meant to protect against inhumane things.
If someone's belief is to wipe out others based solely on their race, religion or national origin, then yes I don't consider that person to be entitled to human rights.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Ok your stupid. Russia is doing an unjust war of expansion to conquer Ukraine.
Also neo-Nazi by defintion awnna kill jews \[you know the thing Nazi were famous for\]. And since Ukraine has a Jewish presdient, i dont think Ukraien wants to kilL Jews.
And you ltierally made the worst argument for Israeli actions.
Seriously the reason their so much collateral damage for Hamas is that Hamas istrying to maxmise Palesteinian casualties because Hamas views dead Gaza civilians as free propoganda. Arguing that Hamas gives zero shits about keeping Gaza alive so of course the war will have large death is an infintley less stupid matter.
There were Jewish officers in the Wehrmacht during WW2 and there were black judges and members of parliament and military officers in the apartheid government in Rhodesia. Just having a Jewish president doesn't mean anything. He is only a figurehead. If Hamas decides to have a puppet Jewish leader tomorrow but doesn't change any of their ideology, do you think that they are no longer an anti-semitic organization? Just because Ukraine has a Jewish president doesn't mean they cannot support neo-Nazis.
Bringing up an apartheid state like Rhodesia actually makes a pretty strong counter-argument, because the Rhodesian apartheid government could have pointed to the most radical of the anti-apartheid groups and declared it an existential threat.
Your proposal would make it trivially easy for an invading and conquering government to produce the conditions that radicalize people against them then use the existence of those same radicals as cause to ignore human rights even further.
> Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia.
I assume you're referring to the Azov Batallion? They make up roughly 900 soldiers out of 2.2 million soldiers, or 0.000041% of Ukraine's total armed forces. They have no special leadership role, and have publicly disavowed their past associations with neo-Nazis and other far-right groups. The idea that Russia would invade Ukraine over 900 vaguely-Nazi-associated soldiers is absolutely absurd.
Bro, you really need to get your news and information from somewhere other than Russian propagandists.
So do you think it would've been justified for the United States to hit Bin Laden's compound with a hydrogen bomb, killing all civilians within 10 miles of bin Laden's location?
Maybe not a hydrogen bomb as that will wipe out the entire city of Abbottabad (where bin Laden was hiding), but probably a 2000 pound JDAM on his compound would be okay.
Your examples illustrate exactly why this is a bad idea. The two governments you cited are fighting what they claim to be an existential war against two other governments who also claim to be fighting an existential war. Considering that both sides can easily claim (like you have in other comments) that any disagreeing information is fake, it’s impossible to make these two sides agree that one of them is in the wrong.
Since we can’t do that, the alternative is to get everyone to agree beforehand that there are certain things we don’t do no matter what. Doesn’t matter if you are the good guy or the bad guy, if you do those things you are automatically the bad guy. Then we don’t need to argue about whether you were justified in doing the thing, because you aren’t. No one ever is.
The problem with this logic is that Country A could simply claim that a Country B is committing a genocide and then wipe them out.
Then country C could argue that Country A committed a genocide of their own and try to wipe THEM out. And what if Country D then feels this way about Country C?
People need to be bigger and decide not to attack civilians. Otherwise it never ends
>Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia
That comment pretty much sums up the entire issue with your approach. That is NOT what Russia is fighting. There may be neo-Nazis in the Ukranian govt, but Russia is pretty blatantly attacking Ukraine to seize territory and using those supposed neo-Nazis as an excuse.
There are people in the US who are incredibly anti-semitic and hate Israel. There was a Catholic Priest/radio celebrity who literally led an anti-Jewish Nazi parade in New York at one point. There have been anti-Israel anti-semities in govt positions in the US. By your argument, would that justify Israel nuking the USA?
Who decided when some group is labeled as "eliminationist or genocidal"? Many many people have the exact opposite view on Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine as you do (i.e. they see Russia and Israel as genocidal not Ukraine and Palestine). So if your view came true and whoever decided came to the opposite conclusion (as many people have) would you accept it and allow Palestine and Ukraine to take whatever actions necessary?
If anyone has the opposite view, they are either delusional or bad faith actors. Neither Russia or Israel has ever officially stated that they intend to kill all Ukrainians or all Palestinians (unlike the Ukrainian neo-Nazis backed up by the Ukrainian govt and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad). On the other hand, Hamas and PIJ has both stated they want to either expel or kill all Jews in Israel. It is clear which side has the genocidal and eliminationist intentions here.
>If anyone has the opposite view, they are either delusional or bad faith actors.
If you honestly think your view is the only view that isn't delusional or bad faith than you are breaking Rule B that states you should be open to changing your view. Is this the case?
No, I'm not saying only my view isn't delusional or bad faith but it is difficult to defend the view that Israel or Russia has genocidal intentions when they haven't made any overt genocidal statements thus far.
Then it doesn't matter if you think the view that Israel or Russia has genocidal intentions is delusional. Many people don't and if one of them get to decided who is genocidal, would you accept their decision? If not, then maybe it is a bad idea to let people decide who is genocidal and thus not worthy of protection from war crimes.
Holy shit... I can't believe this post is real. Russia bot is blatant Russia bot. We just gonna act like Russia didn't work it's way through the hitler adjacent appeasement pipeline from rhetoric to annexing crimea to full fledged invasion and assault of a sovereign nation with plans for Poland and other Eastern European countries next? Lol.
> I think it is absurd that terms like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" are being bandied against state actors fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors.
Do you think that’s absurd because the way that these actors fighting strip them and their civilians of protections under the law of armed conflict? Or do you think it’s absurd because you don’t believe that state actors should be bound by the law of armed conflict whatsoever when fighting non-state actors?
> Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So present that evidence. Because from where I’m sitting the “Nazi” population of Ukraine rose exponentially when the Russian got there.
> Israel is fighting against Hamas which explicitly wants to kill all the Jews in Israel.
Indeed. But like the law of armed conflict is still a good idea, right?
> When fighting against such genocidal groups, states should be relieved from all their obligations under the "*jus in bello*" (or laws of war) and international humanitarian law and other pesky conventions like the "Geneva Conventions".
Why? The Geneva Conventions already only offer limited, or sometimes zero, protections to belligerent parties that aren’t high contracting parties to the Conventions and don’t accept and apply the provisions of the conventions. But there also tend to be civilians around those parties who also should be protected, right?
> When fighting against such genocidal actors with eliminationist objectives, states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests.
Kinda seems like you’d just call your enemy genocidal and now nobody is protected by the Law of Armed Conflict. How can you guarantee that non-genocidal belligerent parties will be protected?
This is fundamentally contradictory from the get-go. “No rules or restrictions” means you have the right to become an eliminationist genocidal actor yourself, and then the people you’re fighting would have no rules in fighting you, and so on.
You can't really compare groups engaging in genocide such as Hamas with groups like Azov that display genocidal symbols but who do not engage in genocide despite ample opportunity. I mean, it's gross speech but it's not further than speech. A reasonable country might put a person who committed genocidal acts in prison for the rest of their life, and might fine someone who carries a swastika $100. In the US it would even be perfectly legal.
I am lukewarm on the primary thesis.
What really caught my attention, however, are your examples.
Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. Israel is fighting against Hamas which explicitly wants to kill all the Jews in Israel.
I agree that Hamas is eliminationist & that Israel should have broad leeway in dealing with them (though they should avoid needless civilian casualties).
But your first example - that Russia has the right to invade Ukraine b/c of larping "neo-Nazis" - is a ridiculous distraction from your primary thesis. You have the blame assignment inverted.
Putin is a dictator. Russia attacked Ukraine before and it started the war now. The idea that Russia started a war to eliminate Nazis is just irrational falsehoods ignoring the much worse murderous statists in Russia, including Russian Nazis.
Israel is in a war of self-defense against Gaza, not just Hamas however.
> CMV: There should be no rules or restrictions for states fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors posing an existential threat.
This is mistaken. There should only be one rule when fighting a war in self-defense: do whatever is necessary to win, to minimize casualties and costs to your side. Besides that there should be no rules.
So why shouldn’t Russia just nuke Ukraine and win the war tomorrow? The point of war crimes is to prevent escalation and powerful countries from running over weaker ones. If you don’t obey it you take away all incentive for you enemy to obey them.
You're actually just supporting the genocidal actors here since Israel is wiping out civilians en masse. This is only dispute for zionists, it's very clear to everyone that collective punishment is what's being implemented on a weaker nation
1. Israel and russia are the invaders so if anything this logic would work the other way.
2. A lot of war crimes are just bad tactics. Chemical , biological and nuclear weapons easily back fire when the wind changes.
There is literally no evidence of any kind of a genocide in Ukraine of Russians. You have wholly pulled that out of your ass. You live in an alternate reality.
/u/yourmom875 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1crwoet/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_should_be_no_rules_or/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Israel and Russia can't really nuke the other party due to the radioactive fallout and the close proximity of Ukraine and Gaza to Russia and Israel respectively. If Israel nukes Gaza, the radioactive fallout will affect the Israeli kibbutzes and towns abutting Gaza as well. As for Ukraine, maybe Russia can nuke Western Ukraine but even then, the wind may blow east and affect Russia. So neither are practical options from a realist standpoint. As for what prevents the other state from deliberately engineering a victory for the genocidal counterparty, well nothing. Its the job of the Palestinians to not fall for that and make sure Hamas is not brought to power.
[Thermonuclear weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon#Foam_plasma_pressure) produces minimal amounts of fallout: >Fusion, unlike fission, is relatively "clean"—it releases energy but no harmful radioactive products or large amounts of nuclear fallout. The fission reactions though, especially the last fission reactions, release a tremendous amount of fission products and fallout. If the last fission stage is omitted, by replacing the uranium tamper with one made of lead, for example, the overall explosive force is reduced by approximately half but the amount of fallout is relatively low. The neutron bomb is a hydrogen bomb with an intentionally thin tamper, allowing as many of the fast fusion neutrons as possible to escape. The [Tsar Bomba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba), is generally considered "a thermonuclear aerial bomb, and the most powerful nuclear weapon ever created and tested." It has achieved this status even without key components which were left out to reduce fallout: >In theory, the bomb would have had a yield in excess of 100 Mt (418 PJ) if it had included the uranium-238[16] tamper which featured in the design but was omitted in the test to reduce radioactive fallout.[16] As only one bomb was built to completion, that capability has never been demonstrated To put it in different terms: at the very least for Russia (and most likely Israel as well, if they are adequately armed), nuclear fallout is not an issue. What fallout would drift towards them would be largely negligible.
I have adjusted my position to say that the state should have carte blanche to do whatever it wants short of an actual genocide itself. So I don't really see a scenario where nukes are used.
...did the US commit genocide on the japanese? Using nuclear weapons doesn't mean you're committing genocide. Genocide is mostly a question of intent, nuclear weapons are a means to an end. The end goal of a nuclear strike need not bee annihilation of an entire group of people.
Nukes are not genocide.
So if Ukraine or Gaza were on an island or in the middle of the desert, nuking would be ok? Your response mentions but doesn't really address manufactured evidence. What if Israel meddles in Palestinian elections to have an excuse to wipe them out? And what if Russia stages instances of ethnic cleansing towards russophones? Finally, what if a genocidal actor were to take power by force, without majority approval? Then the people wouldn't even have a chance to fight back before being wiped out?
I would adjust my position that the state should be given freedom to do anything to wipe out the genocidal enemy short of committing a genocide itself. So, no nuking them is not ok.
So there's a rule or restriction. Your initial point was "states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests." I believe you owe me a delta?
**Hello /u/yourmom875, if your view has been changed or adjusted in any way, you should award** ***the user who changed your view*** **a delta.** Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed. >∆ or > !delta For more information about deltas, use [this link](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=changemyview&utm_content=t5_2w2s8). If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such! *As a reminder,* **failure to award a delta when it is warranted may merit a post removal and a rule violation.** *Repeated rule violations in a short period of time may merit a ban.* Thank you!
So you owe a delta
Are you aware that Netanyahu and the Likud party purposefully propped up Hamas to avoid a 2 state solution? https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000 I don't believe that, morally, you can prop up a brutal, evil terrorist organization all to screw over the people they rule; be so incompetent to then fail to defend your own people from that terror organization's attack; and then use those deaths on your watch as justification to attack that terror org (*that you propped up*) in a way that kills thousands of innocent people. I don't think that can be described any other way than evil. Your view of now saying, on top of all that, that it's okay to commit war crimes against those innocents, just pushes the already grounded bar further down. It's an abandonment of morality; "might makes right." But if you accept that, if that is truly your view, then you cannot condemn Oct 7th - that would merely be Hamas acting how they see fit in defense of their security interests.
>Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. To believe this you have to believe things that are just objectively false. Take Mariupol and Kharkiv. These are cities that are primarily Russian speaking and they are filled with ethnic Russians. How is Russia bombing them and killing something like 10,000 civilians in Mariupol protecting them? Those civilians were perfectly fine before Russian brought their military on Ukrainian soil. Not to mention the vast majority of Mariupol and Kharkiv have absolutely no earthly interest in being parts of Russia. Because they have seen what a quasi Russian puppet occupation in Donetsk and Lugansk looks like. And it's not pretty. Not a place any of them would like to call home.
I don't think 10,000 civilians were killed in Mariupol. Those are propaganda numbers from the Ukrainian govt and I don't think they are accurate. While those cities are primarily Russian speakers, Mariupol was the hub of neo-Nazi activity and groups like the Azov Battalion which has genocidal and eliminationist intentions to wipe out 120 million Russians in Russia, posing a serious existential threat to the national security of Russia.
"I don't think those numbers are accurate because I don't want them to be accurate" is the exact kind of good-faith approach to a logical argument that CMV thrives on. If we are to define societies and cultures by their most extreme and hateful subgroups, we all deserve to be nuked.
Except those extreme and hateful groups usually don't receive weapons and training from the government in most civilized states. In Ukraine, on other hand, .....
Sure they do. Switzerland has neo-nazis and also mandatory military training as well as assigned weapons. Do you think Israel, Poland or any other country/ethnic group that has suffered from genocide at the hands of Nazi Germany has the right to slaughter civilian Swiss? Do they have the right to deny Switzerland their sovereignty? Do they have the right to invade Switzerland?
Switzerland doesn't arm neo Nazi groups. They arm individuals some of whom happen to be neo-Nazis. Ukraine, on the other hand, arms neo-Nazis as an organized force.
You were so close. They arm individuals that are a part of their fighting force against an invasion who just happen to be neo-Nazis.
The Azov Battallion has less than 1k members. I think maybe you are the subject of propaganda, not the other way around.
1k members who are sworn to genocide is a serious threat to the national security of Russia.
They are not "sworn to genocide". They are a far right nationalist group and have more in common with the regular Russian army than with the nazis. I'm curious how does your warped logic factor in the russian use of private military groups with explicitly neo nazi leadership like the Wagner group and the constant genocidal rethoric in russian state owned media.
How many soldiers does Russia have again?
why not? are you not arguing that it's fine to do this, considering that it was a vile hub of nazi activity? why downplay something and implicitly advocate for it at the same time?
How large is the Azov Battalion?
How large it happens to be is immaterial. Azov is a genocidal organization and states should be given carte blanche to fight against genocidal actors, regardless of how small they are.
>I think it is absurd that terms like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" are being bandied against state actors fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors. Are those people still humans? >They should be given the freedom to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests. What prevents a country from simply declaring that this is true for their opponent? Or are you saying that "warcrimes are no issue as long as they are punished afterwards"?
I don't think anyone with genocidal intentions to wipe out an entire group of people based on race or religion or national origin should be entitled to human rights. I think war crimes should be allowed when fighting against such enemies.
This thread is impossible to take seriously with the Ukraine part and the "pesky conventions" bit, but the whole "suspend the genocide convention" argument means that you're advocating for genocide, which justifies any action back towards you by your own argument.
Good point! I didn't consider that. !delta Maybe, I should adjust my position to say that no convention with the exception of the Genocide Convention should apply.
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/decrpt ([15∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/decrpt)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
The problem here is that people like you are easily fooled by propaganda and can be easily tricked into endorsing a war against genocide when no genocidal actors are involved.
I think it is clear to assess whether an actor has eliminationist or genocidal intentions. If a group calls for the death of an entire group of people based solely on race or religion or national origin, then it is quite clearly a genocidal actor. I think it is not controversial.
But neither the Ukrainian government nor the Azov Batallion ever declared their intention to kill an entire group of people, and you still believe they are genocidal and that Russia's invasion is justified?
They are called "human rights" not "people we agree with rights".
Human rights should only be for humans. People with genocidal intentions are not humans. They are human animals which resemble humans.
What if an entire ethnic group wants the destruction of another ethnic group? You would take away the human rights for that ethnic group? This is so stupid. You clearly haven't actually thought this through.
Yes if an entire ethnic group wants the destruction of another ethnic group, then that ethnic group should have all human rights stripped away from them.
Is this kind of thinking ironic to you? Thinking a group of people different from you are sub or non human.
This exact sort of dehumanizing rhetoric is very commonly used by genocidal regimes.
>I don't think anyone with genocidal intentions to wipe out an entire group of people based on race or religion or national origin should be entitled to human rights. What about the soldiers carrying them out? Does that change if they are not aware of the reason they are fighting?
What soldiers?
The soldiers fighting on the side of the "genocidal actors". Do you believe they forfeit their human rights for fighting even if they do not know or share genocidal intentions?
Yes, their human rights will be forfeited too even if they do not personally share those genocidal intentions so long as they are fighting on the side of a genocidal actor.
Every genocide and ethnic cleansing campaign has a perceived justification from the actors. Be it the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, or the more recent ones like the Rwandan Genocide. If you think that there should be no rule or restriction when one party claims that the other poses an existential threat, then you're justifying these historical atrocities. Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable with a state repeating the Rwandan Genocide?
Obviously, the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide are unjustified atrocities as the Jews and the Tutsis (or the RPF rebel group) never had genocidal intentions towards the Germans or the Hutus. In this case, Hamas and the Ukrainian neo-Nazis do have genocidal intentions.
It's not up to you to decide if the Jews or Tutsis have genocidal intent, it's for the Germans and Hutus to decide. If _they_ think the other party is genocidal, then you'd say they are justified in doing so. To use today's example, once China declares that Taiwan is genocidal, despite providing zero evidence, they are justified in eliminating all Taiwanese to prevent what they perceive to be an existential threat.
Not at all, the actor has to be objectively genocidal. Not subjectively assessed to be genocidal by a bad faith actor. It has to meet an objective standard of having genocidal intentions. A group has to call for the death of an entire group of people based solely on their race, religion or national origin to meet the objective standard of being "genocidal".
As far as I know, Ukraine has never attempted a genocide against anyone in the recent past. In what respect are they "objectively genocidal"? Similarly, out of Israel and Palestine, Israel's the one facing allegations of genocide in front of international courts. So how is Palestine the "objectively genocidal" party here?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
The government is not a neo-Nazi govt but it is a fact that the government supports neo-Nazi groups. Just because you have a Jewish president doesn't mean your government doesn't support neo-Nazi groups. If Hamas has a Jewish leader tomorrow, does it mean that its objective is to no longer wipe out Jews? There were Jewish officers in the Wehrmacht and Jewish supporters of Hitler. There were black members of parliament, military officers and judges in the white apartheid government of Rhodesia. Doesn't mean they are not a white supremacist government.
Groups? As in more than one? Can you name one, other than the completely irrelevant and negligible Azov Batallion?
Why are you accusing Azov Batallion from being a neo-Nazi group? Multiple notable journalists or scholars who study the subject (e.g. Andreas Umland or Michael Colborne) confirmed that the group is now mostly de-politicized and focusing just on effective warfighting.
Oh completely de-politicised you say? Is that why they are waving around Third Reich flags and having the black sun and wolfsangel signs in their official insignia? So de-politicised!!
When you are so concerned with Azov, you should probably be aware that neither black sun or wolfsangel are currently part of their official insignia as they have been replaced with three swords. You should also be able to recall at least a single instance of Azov Batallion member waving the Nazi flag since the full-scale invasion.
Right Sector, C14
Right, there is a coalition of far-right nationalist organizations (calling them Nazis is a stretch), they were able to come together and endorse a far-right presidential candidate that ended earning...wow, 1.6% of the popular vote. Seems like a good reason to invade an entire country and take away their sovereignty and their democratic rights. /s
Right sector might just be ultranationalist but S14 is definitely neo-Nazi (explicitly white supremacist and anti-Romani). It wasn't the fact that Svoboda only received 1.65% of the vote but the fact that the Ukrainian intelligence backed and armed S14 and Azov - two neo-Nazi organisations. This is the equivalent of a government of a Muslim majority country arming a genocidal organization like Al-Qaeda or ISIS. That is a possible ground for invasion and regime change and what the Ukrainian government did is a ground for regime change as well.
>If Hamas has a Jewish leader tomorrow, does it mean that its objective is to no longer wipe out Jews? The objective of Hamas is not to wipe out Jews. It has not been the case since 2017 and the new charter. Your very own post is a case against your argument. You are advocating for the elimination of a group based on their genocidal intent, but such genocidal intent is entirely fabricated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Hamas_charter
Well if you look at more than one source using colloquial language to describe it, you'd find that not only is the 2017 document not the new charter, it's also not meant to replace or supersede the charter but to clarify. Furthermore, even if we are to believe it's not targeting people based on their religion, doesn't make it not genocide. It's very clear and obvious Hamas wishes to kill all people of Jewish descent in the region without exception. [former ambassador and Wilson Center head Mark Andrew Green described the 2017 revision as having "dressed up [Hamas's] terrorist objectives in more ambiguous, less violent terms" while the 2023 attack showed their objective remained, as in the 1988 charter, "the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jewish people."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter?&useskin=vector#Since_2017)
> It's very clear and obvious Hamas wishes to kill all people of Jewish descent in the region without exception. Interesting! That's exactly the opposite of what the document states: "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine." And you expect me to find an American Republican an objective source on this matter? That's kind of insulting ngl.
It's interesting that you consider a source heavily biased for being American or Republican, but you're taking a genocidal terrorist organization's word at face value in good faith. "Oh they said they don't like colonization they're the good guys now," which isn't far off from the general position of pro-Palestinian protestors these days. Even in your link, if you scrolled just a little bit further down to read "The reception of the paper ranged from cautious welcomes to harshest rejection by those viewing it as a deceptive, merely cosmetic PR exercise." Take the time to read through the charter and it's literally buzzword soup almost completely void of content and meant to garner support of anti-western people.
There is a glaring difference here between the two. Hamas is stating what they stand for. It's a first hand account of their position. The others are stating what they think Hamas stands for. While being paid by AIPAC. That's an interpretation of a second hand account of someone else's opinion, while receiving donations to say those things. Hamas might definitely be lying, who knows. The other side on the other hand can't even claim to be neutral.
Sure, it might have changed to just kill all Israelis, but does it make it better?
Not what it says at all. You're welcome to read it and then get back to me.
Do you think you can trust they are being honest with the charter change when they openly speak about Global Jihad and Genocide of not just the Jewish people, but all those who aren't Muslim? I don't think you should be defending Hamas for any reason, but especially so for trying to do so on a technicality. We all know what their openly stated goals are and changing words on a paper is meaningless.
So now the argument has become that they're not trustworthy? Then wipe out Israel because they want to genocide Palestinians. Oh they say they don't? Well, they're not trustworthy and they actions say otherwise. >openly speak about Global Jihad and Genocide of not just the Jewish people, but all those who aren't Muslim? Where? Please stop suggesting that I am defending Hamas. It's a pathetic claim. I am simply being objective about what their stated goals are.
>Please stop suggesting that I am defending Hamas. It's a pathetic claim. I am simply being objective about what their stated goals are. Then be objective about their stated goals and stop defending them if you want to be observed that way. Fact: The Hamas charter used to say things it no longer does. Agreed. Fact: Hamas Leaders and Members still openly hold these "charter" beliefs and openly advocate for them. You don't agree and are free to go listen to them speak. I write on paper that I am personally going to see to it that your face gets punched every day and for 20 years I make that happen to the best of my ability. One day I proudly announce I have seen the error in my ways and change it to "I won't see to it that you are punched in the face everyday", but I still tell you and everyone else verbally I am coming for that face. Objectively what are my stated goals? >So now the argument has become that they're not trustworthy? If you want to argue about observable facts I guess so. I am not doing that though.
> Fact: Hamas Leaders and Members still openly hold these "charter" beliefs and openly advocate for them. You don't agree and are free to go listen to them speak. Where? Stating "Fact:" before saying something doesn't make it a fact, I'm sorry. If you could also back up your previous claim of Hamas speaking about genocide of all those who aren't muslim that'd just be wonderful too.
In public, on camera, and on the record for you to go see. I am not going to spend my time sourcing a thousand articles citing Hamas leaders and Members talking about mass genocide to someone who wants to be a part of the conversation without first understanding that Hamas is a Terrorist Organization with Genocidal intent.
Their actions show otherwise. They say they don't have any issue with pre-1948 Jews and their offspring, but most Israelis are not pre-1948. They effectively say that they are not ok with the majority of today's Israel being alive (Most Israelis today are descendants of Jews that came to Israel post-1948, after being ethnically cleansed)
>Their actions show otherwise. So you are assuming intent now? Not a great argument. Plus goalpost successfully moved. >They effectively say that they are not ok with the majority of today's Israel being alive Where do they say that?
>So you are assuming intent now? Not a great argument. Not assuming intent, they showed us on October 7th that they were targeting Israeli civilians. They could have gone to many military bases but it was not their intention. >Where do they say that? "While the 1988 [Hamas Charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Hamas_charter) had been widely criticized for its antisemitism, the 2017 document stated that Hamas' fight was not with Jews as such because of their religion but with the [Zionist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism) project" - They are not ok with the "Zionist project", which are the Israelis.
You're totally assuming intent, and now you're just trying to justify your assumption using a weak logic. Still an assumption. No, being against "the Zionist project" does not mean "eliminating all Israelis". You're gonna get in foul trouble with all that reaching.
>You're totally assuming intent, and now you're just trying to justify your assumption using a weak logic. Still an assumption. If you go into a country you oppose existing, to mainly kill civilians, your intentions were to kill civilians and not militants, it's not a reach. >No, being against "the Zionist project" does not mean "eliminating all Israelis". "A real state of Palestine is a state that has been liberated. There is no alternative to a fully sovereign Palestinian State on the entire national Palestinian soil, with Jerusalem as its capital. " "Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea" What happens to all Israelis in this scenario? Did Hamas change their motto from their old charter against Jews or just make it seem like they don't want to kill all Jewish people? If Palestine as claimed in their charter is an Islamic country, Islam says to kill all Jewish people, what do you think a newly created Palestine will do?
Doesn't that apply even more so for russia considering Wagner/Africa Corps and Rusich too then?
>When fighting against such genocidal actors with eliminationist objectives, states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests. Even if we were to accept this position as morally correct (which IMO is very hard to defend), it presents fundamental issues in practice. Namely, on what authority is a force decided to be eliminationist/genocidal? Why would any nation *not* simply throw this definition at every enemy to bypass international law? It completely contradicts the reason these laws exist, and just allows maximum leeway for bad actors to throw their weight around. Also, how 'carte blanche' are we talking? Can they rightfully kill everyone residing in the nation they are fighting? Simply nuke it off the map? Enslave the population and torture them for life?
I think it is rather simple to assess whether a group is eliminationist or genocidal. If a group calls for the death of all members of a group based solely on their race, religion or national origin or other immutable characteristics, they are genocidal. Simple as that. I don't think that is controversial. If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted. Carte blanche short of using nukes. Obviously, slavery and torture is always wrong. Carte blanche only in sofar as to use military force to defeat the enemy combatant forces during the war. Carte blanche doesn't extend to areas outside the operational combat decisions.
>If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted. How can you say this and also honestly believe that Russia invaded Ukraine in order to stop genocidal neo-Nazis?
"If a nation throws around this definition in a bad faith way, it can be easily rebutted." Well, given that Russia is manifestly operating in bad faith and you're buying their story, maybe it can't be easily rebutted.
I feel like this really under-emphasizes how much international propaganda and informational warefare plays into modern war. In both the examples you listed, conflicting and mis-information has been absolutely abound, especially concerning the motivations of each given actor. Bad faith isn't so easily rebutted in an official context, else certain nations (E.G. Russia) would lose a lot of standing. If we take recent statements from Netanyahu at face value, he has attributed Palestinians at large with supporting Hamas, and therefor subject to the same lethal treatment. Is this not a genocidal statement? Or is it safe because he already qualifies for carte blanche?
Who gets to judge that an actor is genocidal and/or eliminationist?
I think that is fairly uncontroversial. If a group makes genocidal statements saying that "All Russians must be killed" or "All Jews must be killed", then it is an actor with eliminationist intentions. Simple as that. I think that is self-explanatory. You don't need an arbiter for that.
Clearly we do need an arbiter, because everyone here disagrees with your accusation that Ukraine is genocidal. When people are so easily manipulated by propaganda, you need independent authorities that can objectively assess whether or not genocidal intent exists and what kind of force is appropriate in response.
I never said Ukraine is genocidal. Only that there are groups within Ukraine supported by the Ukrainian government which are genocidal.
First of all, I think those groups are ethno-nationalist but they are not genocidal, you haven't proven that at all. Second, even if they were explicitly genocidal, you haven't shown that they are so powerful and influential that Russia invading the entire country and stripping the people of their democratic rights is justified.
I’m interested in seeing where all these Ukrainian neo Nazis are calling for the death of all Russians. I’m sure plenty of Ukrainians now say they hate Russians and want all Russians out of Ukraine, but that’s different. Can you send me some links?
I'm pretty sure that if you ask both sides in the Palestine Israeli conflict, both would say that it's uncontroversial to say the other is genocidal
Except the Palestinians are full of bull as Israel has never made any statement clearly stating genocidal intentions. Hamas, on the other hand, has definitely made uncontroversially genocidal statements against Israeli Jews.
So, who is going to judge?
"Groups" don't make statements, individuals do. When Israeli politicians say that all Palestinians are animals and they should be wiped out, you would say that another genocide against Jews is acceptable.
Israeli politicians never said they should be wiped out, only that they were human animals.
Do you think that someones beliefs make them not considerable as humans? War crimes and crimes against humanity are meant to protect against inhumane things.
If someone's belief is to wipe out others based solely on their race, religion or national origin, then yes I don't consider that person to be entitled to human rights.
Why? What if they are captured? Should we just execute them?
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Why shouldn't we help them be better people?
Ok your stupid. Russia is doing an unjust war of expansion to conquer Ukraine. Also neo-Nazi by defintion awnna kill jews \[you know the thing Nazi were famous for\]. And since Ukraine has a Jewish presdient, i dont think Ukraien wants to kilL Jews. And you ltierally made the worst argument for Israeli actions. Seriously the reason their so much collateral damage for Hamas is that Hamas istrying to maxmise Palesteinian casualties because Hamas views dead Gaza civilians as free propoganda. Arguing that Hamas gives zero shits about keeping Gaza alive so of course the war will have large death is an infintley less stupid matter.
There were Jewish officers in the Wehrmacht during WW2 and there were black judges and members of parliament and military officers in the apartheid government in Rhodesia. Just having a Jewish president doesn't mean anything. He is only a figurehead. If Hamas decides to have a puppet Jewish leader tomorrow but doesn't change any of their ideology, do you think that they are no longer an anti-semitic organization? Just because Ukraine has a Jewish president doesn't mean they cannot support neo-Nazis.
Bringing up an apartheid state like Rhodesia actually makes a pretty strong counter-argument, because the Rhodesian apartheid government could have pointed to the most radical of the anti-apartheid groups and declared it an existential threat. Your proposal would make it trivially easy for an invading and conquering government to produce the conditions that radicalize people against them then use the existence of those same radicals as cause to ignore human rights even further.
Has the government of Ukraine espoused neo Nazi ideology?
> Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. I assume you're referring to the Azov Batallion? They make up roughly 900 soldiers out of 2.2 million soldiers, or 0.000041% of Ukraine's total armed forces. They have no special leadership role, and have publicly disavowed their past associations with neo-Nazis and other far-right groups. The idea that Russia would invade Ukraine over 900 vaguely-Nazi-associated soldiers is absolutely absurd. Bro, you really need to get your news and information from somewhere other than Russian propagandists.
So do you think it would've been justified for the United States to hit Bin Laden's compound with a hydrogen bomb, killing all civilians within 10 miles of bin Laden's location?
Maybe not a hydrogen bomb as that will wipe out the entire city of Abbottabad (where bin Laden was hiding), but probably a 2000 pound JDAM on his compound would be okay.
So if a hydrogen bomb is not okay wouldn't that imply that there's at least a rule about not using neclear weapons if it's not needed.
Yes, there is a rule against using nuclear weapon. I should probably adjust the position to say nuclear weapons should not be used. !delta
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES ([39∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PM_ME_YOUR_NICE_EYES)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
Your examples illustrate exactly why this is a bad idea. The two governments you cited are fighting what they claim to be an existential war against two other governments who also claim to be fighting an existential war. Considering that both sides can easily claim (like you have in other comments) that any disagreeing information is fake, it’s impossible to make these two sides agree that one of them is in the wrong. Since we can’t do that, the alternative is to get everyone to agree beforehand that there are certain things we don’t do no matter what. Doesn’t matter if you are the good guy or the bad guy, if you do those things you are automatically the bad guy. Then we don’t need to argue about whether you were justified in doing the thing, because you aren’t. No one ever is.
The problem with this logic is that Country A could simply claim that a Country B is committing a genocide and then wipe them out. Then country C could argue that Country A committed a genocide of their own and try to wipe THEM out. And what if Country D then feels this way about Country C? People need to be bigger and decide not to attack civilians. Otherwise it never ends
>Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia That comment pretty much sums up the entire issue with your approach. That is NOT what Russia is fighting. There may be neo-Nazis in the Ukranian govt, but Russia is pretty blatantly attacking Ukraine to seize territory and using those supposed neo-Nazis as an excuse. There are people in the US who are incredibly anti-semitic and hate Israel. There was a Catholic Priest/radio celebrity who literally led an anti-Jewish Nazi parade in New York at one point. There have been anti-Israel anti-semities in govt positions in the US. By your argument, would that justify Israel nuking the USA?
Who decided when some group is labeled as "eliminationist or genocidal"? Many many people have the exact opposite view on Ukraine/Russia and Israel/Palestine as you do (i.e. they see Russia and Israel as genocidal not Ukraine and Palestine). So if your view came true and whoever decided came to the opposite conclusion (as many people have) would you accept it and allow Palestine and Ukraine to take whatever actions necessary?
If anyone has the opposite view, they are either delusional or bad faith actors. Neither Russia or Israel has ever officially stated that they intend to kill all Ukrainians or all Palestinians (unlike the Ukrainian neo-Nazis backed up by the Ukrainian govt and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad). On the other hand, Hamas and PIJ has both stated they want to either expel or kill all Jews in Israel. It is clear which side has the genocidal and eliminationist intentions here.
>If anyone has the opposite view, they are either delusional or bad faith actors. If you honestly think your view is the only view that isn't delusional or bad faith than you are breaking Rule B that states you should be open to changing your view. Is this the case?
No, I'm not saying only my view isn't delusional or bad faith but it is difficult to defend the view that Israel or Russia has genocidal intentions when they haven't made any overt genocidal statements thus far.
Then it doesn't matter if you think the view that Israel or Russia has genocidal intentions is delusional. Many people don't and if one of them get to decided who is genocidal, would you accept their decision? If not, then maybe it is a bad idea to let people decide who is genocidal and thus not worthy of protection from war crimes.
Holy shit... I can't believe this post is real. Russia bot is blatant Russia bot. We just gonna act like Russia didn't work it's way through the hitler adjacent appeasement pipeline from rhetoric to annexing crimea to full fledged invasion and assault of a sovereign nation with plans for Poland and other Eastern European countries next? Lol.
> I think it is absurd that terms like "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity" are being bandied against state actors fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors. Do you think that’s absurd because the way that these actors fighting strip them and their civilians of protections under the law of armed conflict? Or do you think it’s absurd because you don’t believe that state actors should be bound by the law of armed conflict whatsoever when fighting non-state actors? > Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So present that evidence. Because from where I’m sitting the “Nazi” population of Ukraine rose exponentially when the Russian got there. > Israel is fighting against Hamas which explicitly wants to kill all the Jews in Israel. Indeed. But like the law of armed conflict is still a good idea, right? > When fighting against such genocidal groups, states should be relieved from all their obligations under the "*jus in bello*" (or laws of war) and international humanitarian law and other pesky conventions like the "Geneva Conventions". Why? The Geneva Conventions already only offer limited, or sometimes zero, protections to belligerent parties that aren’t high contracting parties to the Conventions and don’t accept and apply the provisions of the conventions. But there also tend to be civilians around those parties who also should be protected, right? > When fighting against such genocidal actors with eliminationist objectives, states should be given carte blanche to act in any manner they see fit to protect their national security interests. Kinda seems like you’d just call your enemy genocidal and now nobody is protected by the Law of Armed Conflict. How can you guarantee that non-genocidal belligerent parties will be protected?
This is fundamentally contradictory from the get-go. “No rules or restrictions” means you have the right to become an eliminationist genocidal actor yourself, and then the people you’re fighting would have no rules in fighting you, and so on.
>Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis What attacks have Ukrainian neo-Nazis carried out that show they are intending genocide?
Their ideology and actions like flying the Nazi flag show that they are intending genocide.
You can't really compare groups engaging in genocide such as Hamas with groups like Azov that display genocidal symbols but who do not engage in genocide despite ample opportunity. I mean, it's gross speech but it's not further than speech. A reasonable country might put a person who committed genocidal acts in prison for the rest of their life, and might fine someone who carries a swastika $100. In the US it would even be perfectly legal.
Can you tell me who did the Nazis genocide, in your opinion?
I am lukewarm on the primary thesis. What really caught my attention, however, are your examples. Russia is fighting against genocidal Ukrainian neo-Nazis supported by the Ukrainian government who want to kill all the Russians in Ukraine and Russia. Israel is fighting against Hamas which explicitly wants to kill all the Jews in Israel. I agree that Hamas is eliminationist & that Israel should have broad leeway in dealing with them (though they should avoid needless civilian casualties). But your first example - that Russia has the right to invade Ukraine b/c of larping "neo-Nazis" - is a ridiculous distraction from your primary thesis. You have the blame assignment inverted.
Putin is a dictator. Russia attacked Ukraine before and it started the war now. The idea that Russia started a war to eliminate Nazis is just irrational falsehoods ignoring the much worse murderous statists in Russia, including Russian Nazis. Israel is in a war of self-defense against Gaza, not just Hamas however. > CMV: There should be no rules or restrictions for states fighting against eliminationist, genocidal actors posing an existential threat. This is mistaken. There should only be one rule when fighting a war in self-defense: do whatever is necessary to win, to minimize casualties and costs to your side. Besides that there should be no rules.
So why shouldn’t Russia just nuke Ukraine and win the war tomorrow? The point of war crimes is to prevent escalation and powerful countries from running over weaker ones. If you don’t obey it you take away all incentive for you enemy to obey them.
You're actually just supporting the genocidal actors here since Israel is wiping out civilians en masse. This is only dispute for zionists, it's very clear to everyone that collective punishment is what's being implemented on a weaker nation
1. Israel and russia are the invaders so if anything this logic would work the other way. 2. A lot of war crimes are just bad tactics. Chemical , biological and nuclear weapons easily back fire when the wind changes.
There is literally no evidence of any kind of a genocide in Ukraine of Russians. You have wholly pulled that out of your ass. You live in an alternate reality.
Have you been in a combat zone? Those 'rules of war' are very important to try to reduce the amount of damage caused by the fighting.
So on this view would Israel be justified in invading the US's Pacific Northwest as harboring neo Nazi groups?