• n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think the big difference is whether the force follows the rules of war or not. Obviously the CAF has had some violations, but not on an organisational level like the IRGC.

    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

      The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

      (If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)