• no step on snek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thanks. That’s a good explanation of it.

    But where does one draw the line between “Individual action” and “battalion action”?

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      When the atrocity in question was ordered or encouraged by the leadership. The point the blame passes from the individual to the institution is when the institution gets involved in the atrocity. So if Hamas had said “kill civilians” or “rape women” we’d have to blame Hamas for that, but as long as it’s a decision an individual made on their own only the individual bears responsibility.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        so, if, for example, the head of government goes and awards medals to people shooting children you would assume that the government supports that, right?

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      What’s the standard for this in the U.S.? It reaches only as far up the ladder as anyone can definitively prove. Abu Gharib saw like, what, a lieutenant fired or something. But when it’s “the enemy”, all of a sudden we assume by default the decision came from the highest levels, and it’s carte blanche to wipe out 2.5 million people living in a giant concentration camp, in a supposed attempt to do regime change.