General Discussion

Who is responsible for domicide, scholasticide, or any other other -cide issues (pun intended) you brought up? Those who render the intended use of the facilities in question non-existent and dangerous for humans to be subjected to regardless of their structural integrity, or those who eradicate the infestation that made them toxic and off limits in the first place?

If you were only to look into the applicable rules and laws, you would be surprised at the answers, while learning something new.

But considering how often the gratuitous and fallacious use of the term "genocide" has been discussed on DU, it would appear that learning something new is not in your plans for the conceivable future.

Better?

The very reason for international laws to exist is so the people informed by them don't begin and end their every sentence with the inherent bias of unflinching presumption of guilt by one party and an equally unflinching presumption of innocence, expressed or implied by omission, of the other. While some may consider this approach too novel and radical, the existence of rules and laws demands that guilt or innocence are to be established in accordance with these rules rather than presumed from the outset. It is therefore rather strange to see these rules and laws being invoked in narratives full of ignorance of the said rules, wile pretending that the subsequent inherently biased narratives are somehow supported by them.

What kind of hellish Orwellian double-speak (it's actually Newspeak if you intended to refer to 1984, but I don't mind the error) are the rules and laws contained in the Geneva and Rome Conventions made up of? Well, it's about time you found out.

I dare ya!