287
submitted 6 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

Yeah, but US drone strikes aren't so intense on one small area or group of people

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 14 points 6 months ago

What do you mean? There's a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I'm a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.

We we're much worse.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 11 points 6 months ago

I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.

If anything it's not comparable because what we did was worse.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's 100% comparable. We're talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That's exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.

It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it's plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it's 100. But it's the same thing

It's either okay to kill civilians or it's not.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Plus one two three...?! I'd laugh if I didn't know we were talking about innocent lives lost, and far more than +3. Or are you seriously going to tell me that 28k civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan didn't happen. And USA was there for 6 years. IRAQ am too afraid to look up.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 6 months ago

I'm not omniscient I don't know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I'm aware of

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And for others it was decided it was within rules of engagement and washed their hands. Here's a video from when USA killed those two Reuters reporters. Just skip to 17:05 and see the the casualty report from ground troops. Killed 11 civilians, one small child (in reality there were two)... for what? But this case was thrown out as "they acted within rules of engagement". It's just a shit excuse so no one is to be blamed when innocent people die and this video here shows just how frivolously they shot. One of the soldiers drove over a dead body and started laughing. Other guy said "well it's their problem bringing child to a combat" when it's them who engaged random group of people on the street.

[-] jet@hackertalks.com 4 points 6 months ago

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Yes it's a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we're fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force

This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago

Argument is that I am not convinced what Israel is doing is genocide and it's completely comparable to what USA and other countries did when it was also not called genocide. Collateral casualties are sad, but no war is without them. Whether war is bad or not is not ever arguable, but people can't agree on Coke vs. Pepsi, let alone religion or other subjects so there will always be wars.

[-] Zehzin@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How can you bend definition of genocide so much as to excuse yourself but blame Israel at the same time. Here's a refresher for you.

this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2024
287 points (95.6% liked)

World News

38849 readers
2348 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS