They don’t actually care how you fight a war, the problem is that you’re winning and they want you to lose. When you’re fighting and civilians get caught in the cross fire due to the military infrastructure they’ve built under civilians, then it’s war crimes and genocide. When you propose to evacuate civilians so they don’t get caught in the fighting then it’s ethnic cleansing and creating refugees. If you settle the refugees and civilians in a temporary location within their territory and separate them from enemy combatants, then it’s a concentration camp. It’s better for civilians to stay where they can be used as human shields and killed so activists have something they can get upset about to fill the voids in their lives. While activists care deeply about civilians getting killed in warfare, when it’s your civilians then it’s payback — or your civilians aren’t actually civilians according to the mental gymnastics of an ideological doctrine espoused by college professors and that weirdly older student that never goes to class but attends every protest. The people who think your civilians are evil or legitimate targets will get upset if anyone suggests the same for their team’s civilians. When the fighting creates food insecurity, as war always does, it’s intentional starvation. Unless you provide unhindered supplies directly to the hands of enemy forces, you’re causing a famine. If you create your own aid distribution system, then it’s a mass murder trap because your policing and security of the project has caused several deaths among hundreds of thousands of aid seekers. It is okay when the enemy directly attacks your aid workers and aid seekers, because your humanitarian aid is illegitimate. You must use their corrupt organizations that have cooperated with and facilitated the enemy for years, so they can steal the aid, sell it, lord over the population, and deny civilians food in a more legitimate way. While your aid system is a killing field, when the enemy guns down aid seekers from their own population there is silence, because it doesn’t influence the war’s outcome. If you capture enemy combatants and operatives and interrogate them, you’re abusing them and holding political prisoners. It’s not political or abuse for the enemy to hold for ransom your civilians and soldiers, because they need to do it to free their captured combatants and civilians. If they start a war, it’s on you to cease fire. Attempts at victory are genocide and crimes against humanity. You must adopt a cease fire now that the enemy faces consequences, but not peace, because the enemy wants the option kill you in the future. While the enemy could end the war by surrendering, laying down arms, and releasing captives, it is in fact on you to submit to enemy ransom demands and withdraw troops from territory taken in the fighting. If you do not do this you are a warmonger, as without these actions the enemy will not be able to rearm, rebuild its forces, and attack and start another war in a few years.
See Tweet