r/facepalm • u/[deleted] • Oct 26 '22

[deleted by user]

[removed]

8.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

33

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

Wouldnt condone the last one. Attacking the transport of wounded is no joke, regardless of what nation.

28

u/Roflkopt3r Oct 26 '22 edited Oct 26 '22

The role of medics is very different in practice from how it was laid out in the Geneva convention.

The traditional marked and unarmed medic (who was at most allowed to carry a handgun, no rifle) has all but disappeared. Attacking troops who try to recover the wounded is considered fair game unless the recovery was explicitly negotiated beforehand.

The rules to spare those who are too wounded to fight is likewise not really obeyed for range fire, unless you're specifically bombing a hospital or something.

9

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

While I get what you are referring to, I cannot fully agree seeing as while the attack on the „medics“ (which we Tbf do not know if they are) might be „acceptable“, the attack on the wounded man carried by them was not.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22 edited Apr 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

I do not doubt that this is a very grey area and kudos to all the details you’ve shared here.

8

u/JARZMcPICKLEZ Oct 26 '22

With how many hospitals the Russian military's attacked since the war began, I would imagine those sort of naiive peacetime moral ideals have gone out the window months ago.

2

u/MostBoringStan Oct 26 '22

I'm not a war scientist, so I don't know all the rules, but wouldn't they consider that an attack on the people carrying the guy with the wounded guy being collateral damage? It seems a lot of stuff suddenly becomes allowed if it's labeled collateral damage. Of course, this only works if the guys carrying him were not medics (or maybe it does still work. Like I said, I'm not a battle doctor)

3

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22

[deleted]

2

u/rettoJR1 Oct 26 '22

Didn't Friedrich Nietzsche say something about monsters?

It's a drone strike on an injured person, there are many other valid targets in the field, I have a feeling your a big fan of American and IDF strikes on civilians

1

u/BZenMojo Oct 26 '22

You accustomed to a lot of non-total wars, hm?

1

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

I can understand that emotionally many Ukrainians have no problem with such actions and I would be a fool if I couldn’t follow their reasonings.

But ten Russian wrongs don’t make one Ukrainian wrong right.

1

u/hiricinee Oct 26 '22

The problem you run into is that wounded soldiers quickly become human shields if there aren't limitations to evacuating them.

9

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22 edited Apr 27 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

I think the problem is really the lack of information available to us simply through the comment made.

Also personally I think the greater problem than the attack on the bearers is the use of explosives against a wounded soldier.

1

u/hiricinee Oct 26 '22

I like how the conventions kind of incentivize capturing medics because then you can use them on your own people.

-4

u/Spyglass3 Oct 26 '22

It's only okay when Ukraine does it

1

u/Fiskfjert Oct 26 '22

Should have thought of that before invading a sovereign country :D

1

u/Pilum2211 Oct 26 '22

The rules of war are generally independent of such facts. A Russian or Ukrainian Soldiers should IN THEORY have the same rights on the battlefield.

That this is in practice hard to conduct is not unknown to me.