You must log in or register to comment.
a non binary person approves this urge
What’s stopping you?
The ability to fly.
Where’s this from?
The new Superman movie.
Thanks
Unsolicited independent review: I really liked. It was a fun movie.
Bonus review too, above and beyond.
Thank you both for the spoiler free reviews.
Is it just me, or does that mask look really really plastic? I feel like the prop mask they used on the CW shows looked better
Honestly I assumed it was photoshopped… If that’s what it looks like in the movie, then Disney REALLY needs to pay their artists more…
That be DC, not marvel. So, Warner Brothers
Oh. Well… they’ve been making a ton of bad decisions lately, so that tracks.
Every time I see that picture, I spend about a minute wondering where her nose goes
Yea you’re on to something there. I think that’s the biggest detail that makes me immediately think it’s shopped. lol
‘you have become the very thing you swore to destroy’
idk if assassination is a warcrime when killing foot soldiers is acceptable.
Also doubt that such a method is outlawed, as it's probably never happened.
I’m guessing that anymore that has dropped people out of planes would need to capture the people first, making it cruelty to POWs, whereas I would wanna fly into their base with superpowers and pancake them near where I got them. Don’t think they’d be considered POWs when I just could’ve bashed their faces in with a mace. Until they specifically outlaw that, I’m still acting within the rules of warfare.
yeah i mean this really aint serious so just for the sake of theoreticals if we say that for whatever reason dropping enemy combatants from altitude is your only/most effective form of combat then it may be justified, however if done for any other reason it would be in violation of the following international law:
Geneva Conventions (1949) – Common Article 3
"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities… shall in all circumstances be treated humanely… the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
- (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…"
— Common Article 3, Geneva Conventions of 1949
Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998)
Article 8(2)(b)(xxi):
“Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;”Article 8(2)(b)(xxv):
“Employing means of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;”Article 8(2)(a)(i):
“Wilful killing” of persons protected under the Geneva Conventions is a war crime.Customary International Humanitarian Law (ICRC Study, 2005)
Rule 70: Weapons or methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering are prohibited.
Rule 90: Torture, cruel or inhuman treatment and outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, are prohibited.
and also you should have a moral obligation to treat humans humanely, if nothing else, but thats just my opinion
If violence is ok towards poor people employed by a military but the not ones hiring them, then maybe that’s why people feel so comfortable hiring people to kill other people. I’m not big on punishing people who will never harm others again, but those that are currently or will likely cause harm should be fair game. I consider the person who gives the orders more culpable as the person who pulls the trigger, so killing a leader is better than killing their human tools.
As far as humanely goes, it’s a mutual agreement that requires reasonable expectation of reciprocation. In a world where these laws are virtually never enforced, the best we can do is do onto others what they do onto you. The individuals who knowingly work to kill innocent people need to be stopped with any means necessary.
Things like killing innocents of their tribe are never justified, but the people actively working to kill have enabled PVP. To not view it as such is to give up resistance in any meaningful form. The only reason one should not kill active war criminals is if there is no reasonable chance of success.
i agree that the morality of the situation is foggy and may feel in conflict with established law, and i in no way intend to make an appeal to authority and say that these laws define what morality on the battlefield is, i just felt like pointing out the technical blemish of the meme
I think that the nuance lost here is, dropping someone from a height to kill them, implies they are in your captivity. Thus no longer active combatants, and protected and killing them in that fashion a war crime in of it self. I am how ever unsure if sentencing them to death in a criminal court, would be considered a war crime. As with Sadam.
that's fine because it's legitimatized by state power!
In all seriousness, sentencing people to death is mostly done to make a societal statement about what is acceptable behavior. It can permanently remove dangerous people from ever causing trouble again, but outside of the most charismatic and effective leaders, it’s unnecessary if you manage to capture them. Punishment only gives the feeling of control, which is why I don’t think it’s a valid form of justice in of itself.
Oh I agree with you that it shouldn’t be considered a valid form of punishment. For a plethora of reasons yours being one of them. Only reason I brought it up, was because I honestly don’t know how the Geneva convention and all the other international laws regarding war and war crimes view, what is effectively the same action, eg murder but after a organised deliberation by a court rather than “in the field” my guess is it would depend on were the war crimminal is prosecuted.
I wasn’t saying it’s an invalid form of punishment; I’m saying that punishment is an invalid form of justice. The only reason to lock people up or execute them is so they are no longer able to cause harm. If there’s a better method than punishment (there often is), punishment is unjust.
Didn’t expect to read selections from the Geneva Conventions in femcelmemes, but I can’t say I’m disappointed XD
For curiosity’s sake: do they define “active part”? Do propagandists take an active part in hostilities by riling the base to actions?
good point, no, propagandists are not active combatants, because they do not engage in combat (unless they are also soldiers). this kind of thinking follows from the idea that civilians contributing to the economy of a warring country could by the same logic be deemed combatants, which would be undesirable for the intetests of minimizing civillian loss
- (a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture…"
