Archive article: https://archive.ph/shFsv

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 45 points 1 year ago (19 children)

It used to be that non-combatants weren't considered legitimate targets. Ain't progress fun?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 50 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    tell that to all the civilians in Guantanamo and Gaza.

    if the first aggressor doesn't give a fuck about rule of war, it can't complain about them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Or Ukraine's civilians. Or the 500k--2M dead civilians during the war against Iraq. Oh, sorry, those were "collateral"...

    Usually citizens are not considered fair targets. They're just targeted all the same.

    Iran does not have the military capabilities to fight off Israel, let alone the USA. So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that's the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they're taking losses.

    Unfortunately, and as usual, the very important people who decide to keep going or stop are also the least likely to see their life at risk. And in this case, they also happen to not give a flying fuck about civilians lives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.

    Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA? That's the number one way to get ordinary civilians of a democracy to support an actual war almost 100%. It's the kind of strategy that makes Pentagon say "yeah lol be my guest let's see what happens".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA?

    The USA responded by attacking the wrong country under the false premise of "weapons of mass destruction "?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Go explain that to Iran's leaders. Good luck!

    On 9/11, the message sent was very unclear ("we hate you for your overall activity in the middle-east and the rest of the world" and/or "death to America").

    This time, it may be very clear: "that's retaliation for the unjustified bombing of our country" (though Iran had its share of chanting "death to America", so yes, YMMV).

    I agree with you, you know: more deaths will lead to more retaliations, from both sides. Someone has to act like a true adult responsible pragmatic leader now. But there is none in power on either side.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago*

    In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.

    If there's a war, don't think you're getting off the hook just because you're a civilian. During war, the old adage "If your not with us, you're against us" becomes weaponized.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)

    true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.

    stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it's convenient. President Obama even invented the term 'enemy combatant' so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Yeah that was George W Bush.

    But sure, same thing right? 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    It was under Bush to justify imprisoning civilians. Bush was all for direct war actions.

    Obama massively increased bombings and drone bombings to pull out combat troops and would do stuff like double tap weddings. To lower the number of civilian deaths, Obama declared any male over the age of 14 to be, by definition, an enemy combatant.

    The person you responded to was correct, though a bit imprecise with their words.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

    President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’

    There's no grey area here, this is just false.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    He absolutely redefined to justify killing children. Bush didn't do that. It was used, under Bush, to justify torture and jailing of adults.

    Obama re-invented it for his purposes. The purpose being to kill children without consequence.

    In my mind, that definitional change is significant enough that he owns a lot of that blame.

    Fucking goddammit, he redefined the word to justify killing children. Why do you defend that?

    EDIT: Removed indirect articles for easier readability, content is the same.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?

    It comes and goes, usually whenever it's useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don't want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it's worth fighting, but sometimes it isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments