961
war, war never rules
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
961 points (100.0% liked)
196
6637 readers
1457 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They are defending a made-up line on a map full of made-up lines and names. I don't care about the make-believe show.
But what if the people on the other side of the line think you don't deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?
I can't think of a war that happened because of this. Please don't say WW2 because even the history books don't claim it was to stop the atrocities.
That's a very weirdly specific take that's very dishonest.
There are a huge number of wars that resulted in the genocide, or at least mass death of the losing party.
Many people have defended themselves specifically because the attacking side wanted to kill them all.
I was asking because I don't know of any. I recognize I don't know everything and would be happy to learn more history.
I'm not saying genocides don't happen. Of the ones I can think of, the victims were not able to form militaries to fight back. Genocide requires a power imbalance.
Are organized rebellions (like the Hutu in 1959) military? I would argue they are not because they were not the state. I think that's an important distinction. Being the state sanctioned group which remains at least somewhat assembled during peace carries special weight.
Maybe you could say Hamas et al cause wars in response to genocide but again I don't think they strictly fall into a state military.
I don't even need history.
Ukraine is literally defending itself right now against a state that is committing genocide on its occupied territory.
But, looking at history, there are wars specifically started to cause state-sponsored genocide in another state. And I'll avoid anything Israeli.
There's the first Congo war, which specially killed everyone in now-Congo to make room for the Hutu Rwandans. They started killing Tutsi in their own country, but specifically attacked another state to keep the genocide going.
There's the Bosnian Genocide, though that wasn't technically started to do genocide, it was kept going in order to commit more genocide.
Indonesia invaded East Timor for the express purpose of "pacifying" the sovereign state, killing a third of all people there.
After Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan, Pakistan launched a war specifically to get rid of the Bengal people who initiated their independence.
And of course, you already mentioned WW2, a war started with the explicit goal of creating more living room for the German people.
There are significantly more genocides where there's a larger gap between conquering an area and genociding the original inhabitants though. If you annex a place first, and then genocide it, it falls outside your specific examples. Granted, I'm skirting those a bit, since Russia sees the Donbass as Russian, and them not being at war with Ukraine...
I think it's also important to note here that the previous poster is creating an unrealistic standard by insisting that genocide even be in the picture.
Any war of aggression is a bad thing that people should be able to defend themselves from. And that means having a military. And defending other people from wars of aggression means having a military.
We don't have to be talking about genocide. Whether or not Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine (they are certainly engaged in ethnic cleansing, regardless of any other definitions) is actually irrelevant. The people of Ukraine should not have their future determined by the fact that Putin has men with guns and the willingness to use them. It's as simple as that. And as long as people like Putin exist in the world, having a military will often be the only way to prevent stuff like that from happening.
I didn't bring up genocide, the person you are respond to did.
I am genuinely curious to know who is framing the war between Russia and Ukraine as genocide. My understanding is Ukraine views it as imperialism and Russia views it as liberating people who are Russian from Ukrainian rule (if we are talking about Crimea/Donbas) or stopping Ukraine from doing some sort of evil, I'm not totally clear on this one.
First Congo War is debatable but before I expand on that I want to make sure you understand the war happened after the 1994 genocide? You are referring to a second genocide? (Not debating if the mass killing during the war counted as genocide, just wanting to make sure we are talking about the same thing).
Bosnia genocide I don't think I need to reply further because I agree it wasn't started to do genocide.
East Timor: disagree. There was a civil war because of how the colonial power left (one could say by design) and Indonesia saw it as an annexation opportunity. It wasn't a war between two established states in response to intention to commit genocide.
Bangladesh: I don't think I know who the military who opposed Pakistan was?
WWII: My point has been no allied power cared about liebestraum until it threatened their own borders/colonial interests. If we go back to the comment I was replying to, the person was talking about one country defending itself against another because they thought they didn't deserve to live because of their world view, sexuality or colour of skin. I suppose if you stretch world view into believing they should be allowed to live their life in peace then sure that applies. I can't argue with that one.
You've since added the requirements that the invader needed to state their genocidal intention beforehand, and that both countries need to be recognized states that have some as-yet unstated time period of independence.
Since you're constantly shifting the goalposts, it's impossible to meet your requirements..
No I haven't?
It's 100% possible I misunderstood the person I was replying to, I have no problem acknowledging that. I took their comment to be a question of if it's morally correct to defend a border with a military if the invading military is doing so because they think you "don’t deserve to live because of your world view, your sexuality, your skin colour?"
If you interpret that differently then we are discussing different things and not arguing the same point.
I do think that an army/militia and and military are different. I think a military needs a state, by definition. I think the fact that the military enforces the will of a state is what makes it evil and what makes it so easy to present war as just and self defense while hiding the motive of imperialism.
For added clarity this is what I think is going on in our exchange:
My original statement was that I am not aware of a war that was started between two militaries that was one military defending it's people from another who wanted to wipe them out for their viewpoints, sexuality, colour of their skin.
You replied saying wars result in genocide. I don't disagree with that. That's still not what the comment you were replying to (this one for clarity) was saying.
It is not reasonable for you to tell me what I meant the same way it's not reasonable for me to tell you what you mean by yours.
You are expecting me to discuss your point, which is that wars result in genocide, whereas I am continuing to discuss the idea that wars start as a response to genocide.
I don't understand why you would come into a conversation, reply telling me I am wrong and demand I defend a point I wasn't trying to make.
I made the mistake of thinking you were raising new points to support the idea that I was wrong about what I was discussing, but I was clearly wrong about that.
Well that seems an arbitrary distinction.
It is an arbitrary distinction. I'm explaining my viewpoint.
Oh, well that's fair.
There's no such thing as a perfectly moral war. But would the world be better off today if everyone had just rolled over and let the Nazis do what they want?
Would the world be better off today if people fought the Nazis earlier and not only when it threatened their imperialism and no one used it to further their imperialism? Yes. But that wasn't what we were discussing.
All you're doing here is dodging the question.
No, I answered your question.
Edit: I can be more clear.
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
OK. But that's not what I asked, is it?
The question is simple; would the world be better off if no one had engaged in armed resistance to the Nazis. Why they did it - the exact specifics of a complex sea of motivations - is beside the point.
Arguing that we should just not have a military is arguing that the world should have just let the Nazis take over. It's that simple. It's not about good and bad, it's about what's necessary. Reality does not care about your moral purity.
You may not have seen my edit:
Is it good someone stopped the Nazis from genocide? Yes.
Did armed resistance to the Nazis from state military start because of the genocide? No.
Why countries entered WWII is critical to my position and key to how I view the ethics here. My position is that countries are happy to allow people to think they entered to war to stop the Holocaust because it buys them goodwill. If they can defend their new wars by saying "These guys are just like the Nazis, we are being liberators again!" people are less likely to push back.
This isn't about moral purity. I don't think violence is never justified. I am not aware of an example there a state started a war with another state to stop the killing of people because of their worldview, sexuality, or colour of their skin. That's it's. That's my whole statement.
Maybe you don't define military the same way I do (in that it has to be attached to a state). That's fine. I have no interest in arguing over the definition because it's a distraction from us understanding each other. We can just accept our definition is different (if that's the case).
There we go. End of discussion.
I'm not here to debate the idea that wars are bad, or that they happen for complex, often highly immoral reasons. I never staked out any of those positions. In fact I literally said previously "There is no such thing as a perfectly moral war."
But none of that changes the fact that, like it or not, militaries are necessary. They're necessary because wars get started for immoral reasons. Because we can't wish ourselves into a world where autocrats and fascists and nationalists and revanchists don't exist. We can work to build that world, and we should. But it will take time, and we do not get the luxury of living without any means of stopping those people in the meantime.
You can't be a progressive nation if you're not a nation at all.
Living inside any of those lines doesn't seem to guarantee that. 'People on the other side' is a story the powerful have been telling us for years. What if they start a war and nobody attends?
This is the real world, you don't get guarantees, you get what you have and you have to work with that.
Refusing to engage with any system that doesn't meet your definition of perfect is - and I hate to use this word but there's no other way to describe it - childish.
Sometimes stubborn grandmas have to go sit in front of tanks if change is to happen in this real world full of real men and their real weapons.
Childish is that you believe you have to be stuck forever in the reality that presents itself to you. Direct action means saying 'No' to what you don't want directly.
A refusal to engage is engagement as well.
You work to change the reality, but you still live in the reality you have now.
I want to end capitalism, but I still buy food and pay rent, because I currently live in capitalism. You don't get to opt out of reality.
I live in the reality I have now following my convictions - that means if that kills me it does. That's what convictions are.
You seem so desperately wanting to deny me my opting out of reality, telling me I don't get to opt out. Who are you to tell me what I get to opt out of? Or to tell me what reality is in the first place? I only engage with what I want to engage with. And if it knocks on my door with guns? Well shoot me, if that's what humanity has to offer I don't want my place in it anyways. It probably would help non-humans a lot if we all perished. I assure you I'm not that gloomy in real life.
Disclaimer: I try to survive in this stupid timeline just like the next person, painfully aware that currently we are all complicit in genocide and murder for the sake of our comfort and our habits, not just in Gaza (which is just one of many ghosts in Capitalism's haunted house). The last bit of moral ground I feel I have is that I can loudly proclaim that I will not be sent to war.
Kind of answering to both your answers here. Capitalism sucks, but at least don't let them send you off to kill and get killed.
The laws of gravity do not exist to deny you your right to fly.
Reality is. It does not care about your feelings on the matter.
I really like this response.
Sorry, I don't think I should buy into myths about how the regular people in enemy countries want to eat babies or whatever so that rich people can have more 🤷♀️
So if one day that made up line shifted and now you were in the territory of a government that believes you don't deserve human rights for whatever reason, you'd be totally cool with that.
I'm not cool with being inside any made-up lines. Fighting for any of those mental constructs perpetuates the problem, even though it might be tempting.
I think, in their example, the person would be literally fighting for survival, not for made up lines.
OK? I'm not cool with living under capitalism, but I'll still die if I don't get a job. At some point we have to live with the fact that social and political conditions are going to happen to us regardless of how we feel about them. You don't get to opt out of concentration camps.
... And about the camps: if you are in any country backing Israel or the US you are currently supporting concentation camps. So don't tell me radical pacifism is worse than what everybody is doing already by their non-revolt.
This is just whataboutism. You're not actually making a point, just deflecting.
I would actually 100% support a UN peacekeeping mission in Gaza. I think that the people of Palestine should be defended from Isreal's genocide, and if it takes tanks and guns to do that, I believe that's what we should do.
Doesn't mean I like it. The world I want is one where Isreal isn't engaged in a genocide in the first place. But that's not the world we have. You're not making anyone's life better by sticking your head in the sand.
In your other reply you suggested that I should just refuse to eat and simply die because I want capitalism to end. Who does that help? That's a serious question, and I actually want you to answer it; if I kill myself rather than engage with capitalism, what have I done to bring about its end? Whose life have I improved?
And as long as you keep working under capitalism it will keep existing.
Yes, I understand that sometimes the other option is to die. And the personal line I draw is that I'd rather die than be sent to war. Of course, if the real situation actually arrives my self-preservation instinct will probably kick in and I'll end up dying anyways, just in some trench. But I do wish I had the mental fortitude to tell them to fuck off. In practice it's unlikely to occur at all, I'm too old and a woman.