Every time a war dominates the news, the same arguments appear.
“What about what the other side did?”
“They started it.”
“They deserve it.”
“They had it coming.”
That’s not how war crimes work.
In fact, the entire reason international law exists is because human beings discovered what happens when armies, governments, and leaders convince themselves that anything is justified if they hate the enemy enough.
The rules are actually pretty simple.
Don’t deliberately target civilians.
Don’t torture people.
Don’t rape people.
Don’t execute prisoners.
Don’t kidnap children.
Don’t starve entire populations.
Don’t take hostages.
Don’t use human shields.
Don’t bomb hospitals, schools, or humanitarian workers.
Don’t force people from their homes because of who they are.
These aren’t controversial ideas.
They aren’t partisan ideas.
They aren’t liberal ideas or conservative ideas.
They’re human ideas.
The world spent centuries watching governments commit atrocities and finally agreed that there had to be limits, even during war.
Especially during war.
The problem is that people often support these rules only when their enemies are accused of breaking them.
The moment someone on their “team” is accused, the conversation changes.
Suddenly there are excuses.
Suddenly there are exceptions.
Suddenly civilian deaths become statistics.
Suddenly starving children becomes strategy.
Suddenly human suffering becomes collateral damage.
No.
The rules either apply to everyone or they apply to no one.
If deliberately killing civilians is wrong when your enemy does it, it’s wrong when your side does it.
If kidnapping children is wrong when your enemy does it, it’s wrong when your side does it.
If starvation, torture, rape, and collective punishment are wrong, they’re wrong regardless of which flag is flying overhead.
That is the entire point.
War crimes are not complicated.
What’s complicated is people’s willingness to overlook them when they’re committed by someone they support.
Scarlett says no.