Bilal Barakat on Nostr: To make it explicit: the argument one has to assume these people are ‧trying‧ to ...
To make it explicit: the argument one has to assume these people are ‧trying‧ to make is that it takes military expertise to judge whether killing lots of civilians served a military purpose, and that if it did, this supposedly establishes that they were killed in pursuit of that military purpose and not because there was an intent to kill them (glossing over the fact that even in that case, it would still be war crimes).
And the converse to some extent is true: if killing lots of civilians doesn't even serve a military purpose (or even comes at the expense of a military advantage), that’s a pointer to genocidal intent (indeed, it has been observed that Nazi Germany continued to commit resources to the Holocaust even at a stage where the trucks etc. were desperately needed at the front).
But it is of course perfectly possible to have genocidal intent and for the intended genocide to conveniently be militarily advantageous as well.
So the latter does not in any way negate the former and merely establishing military purpose doesn't settle the intent question, to which the military experts this person calls for cannot actually speak.
And the converse to some extent is true: if killing lots of civilians doesn't even serve a military purpose (or even comes at the expense of a military advantage), that’s a pointer to genocidal intent (indeed, it has been observed that Nazi Germany continued to commit resources to the Holocaust even at a stage where the trucks etc. were desperately needed at the front).
But it is of course perfectly possible to have genocidal intent and for the intended genocide to conveniently be militarily advantageous as well.
So the latter does not in any way negate the former and merely establishing military purpose doesn't settle the intent question, to which the military experts this person calls for cannot actually speak.