5 ms·

So comparing a terrible mistake in an active war zone to a purposeful killing of civilians is..what exactly?

by jsn117 11y ago

pdeuchler 11y ago
The US is not at war with anyone so it's impossible for Afghanistan to be a war zone
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The US is not at war with anyone Yes, it is. A Congressionally declared war, even. People tend to get hung up on the mistaken idea that Congress's power to declare war requires the use of magic words in the legislation in which it is exercised (e.g., that it has to use the words "declare" or "war"), but this is not the case. A Congressional "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is a declaration of war (perhaps -- as was the case with both the 2001 open-ended 9/11 AUMF and 2003 Iraq AUMF -- a conditional declaration of war conditioned on a determination to be made by the executive, but a declaration of war nonetheless.)
  - pdeuchler 11y ago
    Thanks for explaining that, who are we at war against then?
    - koube 11y ago
      Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[1]: "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The wording is vague, however it would be most commonly interpreted as a war against Al-Quaeda. It could possibly but improbably be interpreted as a war against anyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
      - abecedarius 11y ago
        That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? As for organizations, isn't Al Qaeda just a brand now?
        sooheon 11y ago
        The obvious intended consequence of that wording was for the enemy to be an abstraction, to be extended as needed. It's much easier to justify going to war once, and simply readjust who exactly you are warring against as required.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? Its all being targeted at people or organizations the President -- whether Bush or Obama -- has determined have the requisite relationship to 9/11. The accuracy of that determination is immaterial to the AUMF, which isn't contingent on the actual relation of the targets to 9/11, but on the President's determination of the relation.
      - Tepix 11y ago
        So, what's today's interpretation of the word "harboring"? The 9/11 terrorists lived in Germany, this could mean that Germany is considered fair game. Just giving another indication on how vague this wording is.
        ptaipale 11y ago
        Not really. The 9/11 terrorists (those who participated in the actual hijackings) did not live in Germany -- or anywhere -- after the acts, so Germany clearly wasn't harboring them. At the time they lived in Germany (before the attacks), the officials in the country obviously did not know of their plans.
        dragonwriter 11y ago
thwest 11y ago
The AUMF declared the entire globe an active war zone.
themgt 11y ago
The MSF hospital bombing was pretty clearly not a "terrible mistake", but was in fact "purposeful killing of civilians" https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospital-was-probably-a-war-crime/ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospi...
- jacobolus 11y ago
  Your summary is not commensurate with the story you linked. Something can be both a “terrible mistake” and also a violation of international law. At a high level, it seems unlikely that American military leaders would intend to bomb a hospital, considering the horrible human toll and subsequent political and public relations disaster. Perhaps the investigation will turn up a more complete story about why the hospital was targeted.
  - sooheon 11y ago
    They don't really feel the blowback of a PR disaster when 1. most are uninformed, and 2. of the few informed there are enough people like you who will cover for them and give them benefit of the doubt. If a hospital on US territory is bombed, it would be out of the question whether it was simply an oopsie. But if in the carriage of justice and liberty some humanitarian workers find themselves collaterally damaged, it was a "terrible mistake", which the men with grave furrowed brows, clean suits, and heavy burdens to bear no doubt weighed against imminent national security concerns.
    - jacobolus 11y ago
      I’m certainly not “covering for them”. The bombing of the hospital is a violation of international law, and whoever made the call to bomb it should be court-martialed and held accountable. On the other hand I don’t think it is reasonable to presume that the hospital was targeted deliberately by someone in the US military without further knowledge of what happened. US military leaders aren’t all sadistic cartoon villains sitting around twirling their mustachios and cackling about civilian deaths. If it is true that some of our “allies” on the ground in Afghanistan directed the US military to bomb that location, as was reported somewhere I read, then that is no excuse for such a colossal fuckup – especially considering that the MSF had previously told all sides the hospital’s coordinates – and whoever in the US military took that information at face value should take proper responsibility, and whoever directed them should also be dealt with. If instead it was, as themgt speculates, a deliberate choice by someone in the American military to target the building with full knowledge that it is a hospital, then that person should be tried for war crimes.
retrogradeorbit 11y ago
You need to understand how this game works. The word mistake does not mean what you think it means, just like "collect" and "interrogate" doesn't mean what you, and everyone else, thinks it means. How convenient that it was a "mistake". Reminds me of the time the US "mistakenly" bombed Al Jazeera's offices. [1] So the US will offer full support of the MSF's calls for a War Crime tribunal investigation? What really amazes me is that no matter what information comes out, no matter how stark the facts, how brutal the reality, how corrupt the politics, how illegal the tactics, there is always a band of American apologists ready to step up justify cold blooded murder. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo
- cryoshon 11y ago
  Yes, "patriotism" (a mind disease) is endemic to the US, and it produces legions of useful idiots who are unwilling to admit grotesque/gaping faults in their motherland. These are the same people you see on the TV reading the news and playing the role of "topic expert".
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  > What really amazes me is that no matter what information comes out, no matter how stark the facts, how brutal the reality, how corrupt the politics, how illegal the tactics, there is always a band of American apologists ready to step up justify cold blooded murder. Well, that's not so much an American thing, it's very general. I wouldn't even restrict it to nations only, it's a general "tribe" thing. It can even apply to video games and music, sports, and so on. The worst part to me is that conflicts can very well be driven where people on all sorts of sides "reason" (it really has to be put in quotes I think) this way. With the result that attempts at fairness, any objections to double standards makes a person a perceived traitor to everybody deeply invested on the self-delusion of any of the sides. From "Notes on Nationalism" by George Orwell: (as most if not all of his writings, it's available on the web and well worth a read) > The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.
sooheon 11y ago
Funny how military action causing completely foreseen and accepted civilian deaths is categorised as a "terrible mistake", and contrasted with a "purposeful killing of civilians". Drone strikes on weddings or bombings of hospitals are as calculated and purposeful as can be, and the fact that innocent civilians will die is accounted for, if not an explicit goal. It's just that we can slap the label "collateral damage from targeted precision strikes" on them.
rdancer 11y ago
The only "mistake" about it was the failure to contain the blowback.

So comparing a terrible mistake in an active war zone to a purposeful killing of civilians is..what exactly?

by jsn117 11y ago

So comparing a terrible mistake in an active war zone to a purposeful killing of civilians is..what exactly?

pdeuchler 11y ago

The US is not at war with anyone so it's impossible for Afghanistan to be a war zone

dragonwriter 11y ago
> The US is not at war with anyone Yes, it is. A Congressionally declared war, even. People tend to get hung up on the mistaken idea that Congress's power to declare war requires the use of magic words in the legislation in which it is exercised (e.g., that it has to use the words "declare" or "war"), but this is not the case. A Congressional "Authorization for the Use of Military Force" is a declaration of war (perhaps -- as was the case with both the 2001 open-ended 9/11 AUMF and 2003 Iraq AUMF -- a conditional declaration of war conditioned on a determination to be made by the executive, but a declaration of war nonetheless.)
- pdeuchler 11y ago
  Thanks for explaining that, who are we at war against then?
  - koube 11y ago
    Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists[1]: "IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." The wording is vague, however it would be most commonly interpreted as a war against Al-Quaeda. It could possibly but improbably be interpreted as a war against anyone. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...
    - abecedarius 11y ago
      That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? As for organizations, isn't Al Qaeda just a brand now?
      - sooheon 11y ago
        The obvious intended consequence of that wording was for the enemy to be an abstraction, to be extended as needed. It's much easier to justify going to war once, and simply readjust who exactly you are warring against as required.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > That's interesting: surely almost none of the state violence still being committed under this law is aimed at persons who had anything to do with 9/11, right? Its all being targeted at people or organizations the President -- whether Bush or Obama -- has determined have the requisite relationship to 9/11. The accuracy of that determination is immaterial to the AUMF, which isn't contingent on the actual relation of the targets to 9/11, but on the President's determination of the relation.
    - Tepix 11y ago
      So, what's today's interpretation of the word "harboring"? The 9/11 terrorists lived in Germany, this could mean that Germany is considered fair game. Just giving another indication on how vague this wording is.
      - ptaipale 11y ago
        Not really. The 9/11 terrorists (those who participated in the actual hijackings) did not live in Germany -- or anywhere -- after the acts, so Germany clearly wasn't harboring them. At the time they lived in Germany (before the attacks), the officials in the country obviously did not know of their plans.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago

thwest 11y ago

The AUMF declared the entire globe an active war zone.

themgt 11y ago

The MSF hospital bombing was pretty clearly not a "terrible mistake", but was in fact "purposeful killing of civilians" https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospital-was-probably-a-war-crime/ https://theintercept.com/2015/10/06/why-bombing-kunduz-hospi...

jacobolus 11y ago
Your summary is not commensurate with the story you linked. Something can be both a “terrible mistake” and also a violation of international law. At a high level, it seems unlikely that American military leaders would intend to bomb a hospital, considering the horrible human toll and subsequent political and public relations disaster. Perhaps the investigation will turn up a more complete story about why the hospital was targeted.
- sooheon 11y ago
  They don't really feel the blowback of a PR disaster when 1. most are uninformed, and 2. of the few informed there are enough people like you who will cover for them and give them benefit of the doubt. If a hospital on US territory is bombed, it would be out of the question whether it was simply an oopsie. But if in the carriage of justice and liberty some humanitarian workers find themselves collaterally damaged, it was a "terrible mistake", which the men with grave furrowed brows, clean suits, and heavy burdens to bear no doubt weighed against imminent national security concerns.
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    I’m certainly not “covering for them”. The bombing of the hospital is a violation of international law, and whoever made the call to bomb it should be court-martialed and held accountable. On the other hand I don’t think it is reasonable to presume that the hospital was targeted deliberately by someone in the US military without further knowledge of what happened. US military leaders aren’t all sadistic cartoon villains sitting around twirling their mustachios and cackling about civilian deaths. If it is true that some of our “allies” on the ground in Afghanistan directed the US military to bomb that location, as was reported somewhere I read, then that is no excuse for such a colossal fuckup – especially considering that the MSF had previously told all sides the hospital’s coordinates – and whoever in the US military took that information at face value should take proper responsibility, and whoever directed them should also be dealt with. If instead it was, as themgt speculates, a deliberate choice by someone in the American military to target the building with full knowledge that it is a hospital, then that person should be tried for war crimes.

retrogradeorbit 11y ago

You need to understand how this game works. The word mistake does not mean what you think it means, just like "collect" and "interrogate" doesn't mean what you, and everyone else, thinks it means. How convenient that it was a "mistake". Reminds me of the time the US "mistakenly" bombed Al Jazeera's offices. [1] So the US will offer full support of the MSF's calls for a War Crime tribunal investigation? What really amazes me is that no matter what information comes out, no matter how stark the facts, how brutal the reality, how corrupt the politics, how illegal the tactics, there is always a band of American apologists ready to step up justify cold blooded murder. 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_bombing_memo

cryoshon 11y ago
Yes, "patriotism" (a mind disease) is endemic to the US, and it produces legions of useful idiots who are unwilling to admit grotesque/gaping faults in their motherland. These are the same people you see on the TV reading the news and playing the role of "topic expert".
PavlovsCat 11y ago
> What really amazes me is that no matter what information comes out, no matter how stark the facts, how brutal the reality, how corrupt the politics, how illegal the tactics, there is always a band of American apologists ready to step up justify cold blooded murder. Well, that's not so much an American thing, it's very general. I wouldn't even restrict it to nations only, it's a general "tribe" thing. It can even apply to video games and music, sports, and so on. The worst part to me is that conflicts can very well be driven where people on all sorts of sides "reason" (it really has to be put in quotes I think) this way. With the result that attempts at fairness, any objections to double standards makes a person a perceived traitor to everybody deeply invested on the self-delusion of any of the sides. From "Notes on Nationalism" by George Orwell: (as most if not all of his writings, it's available on the web and well worth a read) > The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. For quite six years the English admirers of Hitler contrived not to learn of the existence of Dachau and Buchenwald. And those who are loudest in denouncing the German concentration camps are often quite unaware, or only very dimly aware, that there are also concentration camps in Russia. Huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles. Many English people have heard almost nothing about the extermination of German and Polish Jews during the present war. Their own antisemitism has caused this vast crime to bounce off their consciousness. In nationalist thought there are facts which are both true and untrue, known and unknown. A known fact may be so unbearable that it is habitually pushed aside and not allowed to enter into logical processes, or on the other hand it may enter into every calculation and yet never be admitted as a fact, even in one's own mind.

sooheon 11y ago

Funny how military action causing completely foreseen and accepted civilian deaths is categorised as a "terrible mistake", and contrasted with a "purposeful killing of civilians". Drone strikes on weddings or bombings of hospitals are as calculated and purposeful as can be, and the fact that innocent civilians will die is accounted for, if not an explicit goal. It's just that we can slap the label "collateral damage from targeted precision strikes" on them.

rdancer 11y ago

The only "mistake" about it was the failure to contain the blowback.