• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      7 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 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.