[glogla]

I wonder how much can we even talk about collateral damage when almost all the enemy civilians support an aggressive war. I get that they're non-combatants, but they're not innocents.

Especially when the "collateral damage" is in this case is "I can no longer buy iphone".

[eastbound]

The more I get old, the more I notice that people’s opinions are not really their own, but are function of the nation’s medias. Can we blame people for their opinion?

[alar44]

Yes, ffs.

[robrorcroptrer]

Free will and the self does not exist.

Edit: with this I only meant to say that it is unfair to judge or blame - policies still need to be enforced which is in line with the established consensus of moral philosophy.

[codeflo]

That’s a non-sequitur. If free will in the strict philosophical sense doesn’t exist (and I believe it might not), then we need to judge and blame to influence the decision process of current and potential offenders.

[rhn_mk1]

Can we always blame people for their opinions?

Can we blame the mentally underdeveloped, like children?

[hef19898]

In tge case of strategic bombing it's easy: Targeting of non-combatants in war is a war crime. As colleteral damage it still sucks, but it is not a crime.

That's where the buck stops, because definibg what a non-combatant is is easier then deciding who is "innocent".

Sanctions are trickier, I just fail to come with an alternative to them.

[pain2022]

I’m curious what is your source for Russian civilians supporting the war?

My counter-point is that almost everyone from my friends, family and colleagues are upset about the war, and many left the country

[hef19898]

Well, even if 100% of Russians, including the infants, supportrd the war it wouldn't change the fact that a potential strategic bombing campaign against Russian cities would be a war crime.

[White_Wolf]

Civilians should not be dragged into it. Soldiers killing soldiers is one thing but civilians must not be dragged into it.

"but they're not innocents." ===> I'm wondering if those crazy bombers think the same as you do when killing/bombing "Civilians" instead or armed forces.

You logic was prevalent in feudal times. If someone attacked you, you'd wipe they whole city/area and their entire family tree just to make sure theree's nobody left to take revenge.

[yorwba]

Imagine dropping a bomb on a shipping container of iPhones. What's the point? What objective does it serve? How does it contribute to the war effort?

Considering the cost of the bomb, I think the expected value is rather likely to be negative.

[glogla]

In videogame lingo, sanctions are a debuff. You won't see it working directly, but it very much contributes.

[yorwba]

Contribute to what objective? How? How much? At what cost?

I think sanctions should be applied based on answers to these questions, not some vague idea that they'll be like a debuff in a video game.