Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointman
You can claim that Ukrainians are fighting for survival against barbarian forces led by a mad dictator and thus any killing of such nature is good. I can get behind that. You can't however concurrently take a higher moral ground and claim that Dugina is a legitimate war target. You can read below on what a legitimate target is. The only damage to civilians that is acceptable is a collateral damage. Simply put, a target that gives you a decisive military advantage is legitimate target while blowing prominent figures with intentions of showing them and teaching lessons is terrorism. Not getting it right is a matter of getting vocabulary wrong rather being on the wrong side of the war. Shooting Putin is actually fair game since he's a chief commander of an army. A journalist who promoted the war? I am actually on board with blowing her as long, as it helps stop the war. We would have to get off a high moral horse first though. You can either play by the rules or say screw the rules we have to survive here. Either way is perfectly acceptable in current circumstances, but not both simultaneously.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legi...ilitary_target |
I'm not claiming moral high ground.
In the very link you sent there is room for tons of nuance (last paragraph). A national figure promoting the war, and referring to Ukrainians with the same terminology that the actual Nazis did (subhuman), she becomes a legitimate target during war time IMO. Maybe you see it differently, but she is not reporting impartial news. She is a tool of the State's war machine, and therefore a target.
The discussion is moot anyway since it wasn't the Ukrainian government that offed her.