[naasking]

> Why should they play by some foreign made up book just because it would suit the oppressor who massively overpowers you in every aspect?

If they refuse to abide by the "foreign book" that dictate the rules of conflict, then I'm not sure how they could legitimately use the foreign book's classification of genocide. Those rules are what dictate how to classify a genocide.

[d1sxeyes]

Well they don’t have to agree with all of it. The Geneva convention is (primarily) an agreement between parties that “we’ll follow these rules so we don’t end up killing civilians and razing cities to the ground”. When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

[ceejayoz]

> When the opposing side is doing that, what good does it do you to say “but under subsection 17 b of paragraph 11…”

Remaining the "good guys"?

[naasking]

Because genocide is defined by wholesale targeting of civilians, but if the opposing side uses civilians as human shields then that definition can no longer be applied.

[esseph]

> foreign book's classification of genocide

Why can't they just use their own? Seems silly. Not sure this makes sense.

[naasking]

Then it's not genocide by any definition anyone else uses. I don't see what the confusion is.