• Saleh@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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”.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.