The bombing is the latest in a series of assassinations of high-ranking Russian military and political figures carried out by Ukrainian forces and marks the highest-ranking Russian military figure to have been assassinated.
Assasinations of individuals using perfidity are illegal under the Geneva convention. It is explicitly mentioned in the article. For a more detailed look read through this:
Please stop misreading (or misrepresenting, whichever it is) this source. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, the only definition of perfidy given in the Geneva Conventions is the invitation and betrayal of confidence. To quote your link:
Treachery comprised a breach of confidence by the attacker in a situation where the victim had reason to trust that attacker. In that sense, it foreshadowed the distinction between ruses and perfidy that would appear in 20th-century treaties and customary law of war.
This is not true, see the reply to the prohibitions around booby-traps, which explicitly notes them to be devices that can constitute treachery and perfidy. Which of course they are.
I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack, especially as treachery originates, as the article describes, from an understanding of “chivalry”.
Because, as I have already said to you, the device was manually triggered according to Russia. This makes it definitionally not a booby trap. If that did count as a booby trap, then a sniper waiting for someone to leave cover would be a booby trap, which is clearly nonsense.
I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack
Because the Ukrainians are under no obligation to announce what they are doing to the Russians and are therefore not betraying anything. It is not a war crime to employ stealth. It is perfidy to invite trust and then betray it, as I have pointed out to you in the Geneva Conventions and your source several times.
I mean yeah, they probably would. The words have specific connotations; murder is not just killing, it’s unlawful or unjust killing. This is like the opposite to when police shoot someone dead at a traffic stop and the headline is “black man passes away after interaction with police”
Ah, of course, that icon of non partisan high brow news and information the World Socialist Web Site
Do you disagree with the article or just the source?
Both
The article seems factual and unbiased as far as possible can tell.
What about the title? Since when killing a soldier during war is a murder?
Assasinations of individuals using perfidity are illegal under the Geneva convention. It is explicitly mentioned in the article. For a more detailed look read through this:
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
Note that Westpoint is an American military academy. I hope this removes your worries of Russian trolls.
Please stop misreading (or misrepresenting, whichever it is) this source. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, the only definition of perfidy given in the Geneva Conventions is the invitation and betrayal of confidence. To quote your link:
This is not true, see the reply to the prohibitions around booby-traps, which explicitly notes them to be devices that can constitute treachery and perfidy. Which of course they are.
I find it hard to understand, how you get to the conclusion that having civilian objects explode in a civilian area is somehow considered an non treacherous attack, especially as treachery originates, as the article describes, from an understanding of “chivalry”.
Because, as I have already said to you, the device was manually triggered according to Russia. This makes it definitionally not a booby trap. If that did count as a booby trap, then a sniper waiting for someone to leave cover would be a booby trap, which is clearly nonsense.
Because the Ukrainians are under no obligation to announce what they are doing to the Russians and are therefore not betraying anything. It is not a war crime to employ stealth. It is perfidy to invite trust and then betray it, as I have pointed out to you in the Geneva Conventions and your source several times.
Semantics.
So what? You’d be fine with the title if it said “killed in action” or something like that?
I mean yeah, they probably would. The words have specific connotations; murder is not just killing, it’s unlawful or unjust killing. This is like the opposite to when police shoot someone dead at a traffic stop and the headline is “black man passes away after interaction with police”
I’d argue that KIA implies that they were on the front lines, but once again that’s semantics.
I think the vast majority understands the meaning of the headline and aren’t overly concerned with the dictionary definition of murder.
I would say you are talking rubbish and use the word “murder” is a blatant Russian propaganda.
deleted by creator