5 ms·

The fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians - including children - in their strikes against (assumed) terrorists is madde

The fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians - including children - in their strikes against (assumed) terrorists is maddening to me. I understand that there are people who cannot be stopped from harming others with non-violent means. But how does it justfy that extra random murdering that the US military performs? At which point does this become a war crime?

devoply 7y ago
It's because the myth of freedom is used to sell America's own version of a religion which justifies acts of wholesale violence. Just like the Islamist use the myth of Islam to justify their violence. Either side is willing to kill civilians using violence to further its supposed ideological cause... which neither side actually serves. Each side claims that the civilians will benefit from establishing its religion. The civilians lose either way... see Iraq for an example of American freedom and Afghanistan for an example of Islam.
mortehu 7y ago
The other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields, the world would find out, and US would never win another battle again.
- Udik 7y ago
  I think we should be really careful in telling apart real cases of civilians used as human shields from simple propaganda used against the enemies. Accusing the enemy of using human shields is very handy for at least two purposes: de-humanising them and justifying a high number of civilian casualties. Also remember that in highly asymmetric warfare, clearly separating yourself from civilians effectively means hanging a target sign from your neck and asking to be killed. Those who have the most advanced technologies and weaponry at their disposal cannot be serious in asking that a poorly armed enemy fight on the same terms: a bit too cavalier when they have Kalashnikovs and you have semi-autonomous drones piloted from half the world away.
- s_kilk 7y ago
  Consider the US's famed "Double Tap" strikes, where they bomb a wedding ceremony, then come back around to bomb the paramedics that show up a few minutes later. Are those folks being used as human shields by the dastardly terrorists, or are we really just putting up a smoke-screen to defend the heinous actions of the US?
  - fjsolwmv 7y ago
    Drone strikes have killed as many people as the 9/11 hijackings. That put the USA government -- and the people who democratically control it, on par with Al Qaeda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333
    - littlestymaar 7y ago
      Being “on par” with such an evil organization shouldn't really be a source of pride…
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Please define human shield. Is it the family of the terrorist with whom he lives? Friends invited over to spend time with? Where is the difference between people being around coincidentally and people being kept around for protection?
  - xupybd 7y ago
    Often it’s worse. It’s schools and Mosques. Places that look really bad to target. War is horrible it’s taking life in the hope you’ll save more.
  - bobcostas55 7y ago
    To give just one prominent example: Hamas stores weapons in and fires rockets from hospitals, there's no "coincidentally" - these groups know exactly what they're doing.
    - DSingularity 7y ago
      https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-human-shields-claims-gaza-180618085404724.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-hum... I wonder what kind of person pushes false narratives dehumanizing a people who have been oppressed by a brutal occupation for decades.
      - sergioj97 7y ago
        I don't think there's a way to know for sure. I guess we could exchange links that described opposite points of view all day long, but we wouldn't reach any meaningful conclusions. However I fail to understand why this human shield topic seems so unbelievable to some people. Terrorist-like groups such as Hamas constantly show a very explicit lack of respect for innocent lives (even for the lives of innocents who share their same culture), the most clear example being attacks directed exclusively towards civilians. You can say "similar" things about the US (and other governments), but certainly not the same thing. One of the obvious reasons for this is that a terrorist group usually faces an extreme disadvantage when it comes to logistics and operational capabilities in general, specially against the US military. Using civilian installations as human shield seems to be in line with the way terrorist groups usually fight back (using civilians lives as a mean to reach their goals). I'm not saying that the fact that it's a plausible possibility makes it a reality. It is a possibility (an unlikely one in my opinion) that a terrorist group decides to avoid killing civilians (refusing also to use this human shields) and tries to dominate the conflict spreading terror by any other means. And it's certainly a possibility that Israel created this hoax, too. I'm only saying it's not that strange seeing terrorist groups doing this kinds of things, without the need to create any fictional narration.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  We aren't talking about battles against combatants. We are talking about assassinations of people who could conduct an attack against the US. It's not about winning battles, It's about killing the enemy troops before a battle could even occur.
decoyworker 7y ago
The US military does have qualms against it hence the article and constant strive for more precision. I ask you- what is the alternative? And don't give me the whole, "shouldn't be bombing in the first place" red herring.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  They may not have a legal right to bomb. Depending on the details of the situation, I'm not sure where to draw the lines between warfare and war crimes. And I am not even considering the fact that some operations were conducted on foreign soil without consent from the local government - another can of worms. And I will ask another question: why bombs? Why remote drones? Why is it impossible to use other means? The assassination of Osama bin Ladin was carried out by soldiers on the ground, after all.
  - fjsolwmv 7y ago
    War crimes are what losers did.
- ourmandave 7y ago
  I guess it's a step in the right direction, as we were blowing up weddings targets were attending. And we followed up by blowing up the target's funeral figuring the bereaved where fellow operatives. Quite a way to win hearts and minds...
  - decoyworker 7y ago
    War sucks what do you want me to tell you? I've been there and served in Afghanistan. I wish this enemy would stand away from civilians and identify themselves clearly.
    - gmueckl 7y ago
      Your call for identification and distance from civilians is telling. You would be in the right if the enemy was an organized militia. But these terrorists avoid military patterns of behavior/organization. So what is the proper classification? Criminals? If that is true, the US military would be judge, jury and executioner in one.
m0zg 7y ago
>> The fact that the US military has no qualms >> with killing random innocent civilians - >> including children - in their strikes >> against (assumed) terrorists That's bullshit. The US military cares a lot about not causing collateral damage. Wars could be much deadlier, fought much more quickly, and for much less money if it did not.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  But the US accepts collateral damage willingly by executing attacks that will harm or kill bystanders as part of the plan.
  - m0zg 7y ago
    The US would rather have no collateral damage at all. Hence the expensive high precision weapons and all that. If you are suggesting that the US should not kill terrorists, that's not a realistic proposition.
    - gmueckl 7y ago
      Hm... why do you believe that not killing these people is not an option? Do you have first hand experience with them? I don't. All I have to go on are news stories and occasional annecdotes from people in the affected areas. That does not make a very complete picture. How successful would these people be without any intervention by the US?
      - m0zg 7y ago
        No I don't. Some people objectively deserve to die. See e.g. ISIS, radical islamists, etc.
JohnBooty 7y ago
The fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians Factually untrue. You can say the U.S. military doen't care nearly enough about it. Fine. Now we're in the realm of opinion. I'd probably agree. But "no qualms?" If you want to see a military power with literally "zero qualms" look at regimes like Assad in Syria, using indiscriminate chemical attacks in civilian areas. That is what "no qualms" looks like. Or look at landmines. Suicide bombers in civilian areas. Large-yield nuclear weapons. High-altitude carpet bombing runs. Those are "no qualms" weapons. Even a standard explosive drone-launched Hellfire missile is a weapon of extreme precision and minimal collateral damage compared to any other explosive weapons that have been used for the last hundred years or so. It would be utter madness to spin Hellfire missile strikes as benevolent acts of kindness. They are acts of violence that sometimes hurt and kill innocents and thinking about that should make anybody with a conscience feel ill. But as far as those sorts of things go, characterizing their use as "no qualms with killing random innocent civilians" is just untrue. They are remarkably focused compared to just about any other method of killing people from great distances that humans have managed to invent. There are plenty of injustices perpetrated by the U.S. military. We don't need to invent or exaggerate them. It doesn't help the cause of legitimate criticism.

devoply 7y ago

It's because the myth of freedom is used to sell America's own version of a religion which justifies acts of wholesale violence. Just like the Islamist use the myth of Islam to justify their violence. Either side is willing to kill civilians using violence to further its supposed ideological cause... which neither side actually serves. Each side claims that the civilians will benefit from establishing its religion. The civilians lose either way... see Iraq for an example of American freedom and Afghanistan for an example of Islam.

mortehu 7y ago

The other way to look at it is that enemy combatants have no problems using innocent civilians as human shields. If US decided it would not harm human shields, the world would find out, and US would never win another battle again.

Udik 7y ago
I think we should be really careful in telling apart real cases of civilians used as human shields from simple propaganda used against the enemies. Accusing the enemy of using human shields is very handy for at least two purposes: de-humanising them and justifying a high number of civilian casualties. Also remember that in highly asymmetric warfare, clearly separating yourself from civilians effectively means hanging a target sign from your neck and asking to be killed. Those who have the most advanced technologies and weaponry at their disposal cannot be serious in asking that a poorly armed enemy fight on the same terms: a bit too cavalier when they have Kalashnikovs and you have semi-autonomous drones piloted from half the world away.
s_kilk 7y ago
Consider the US's famed "Double Tap" strikes, where they bomb a wedding ceremony, then come back around to bomb the paramedics that show up a few minutes later. Are those folks being used as human shields by the dastardly terrorists, or are we really just putting up a smoke-screen to defend the heinous actions of the US?
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  Drone strikes have killed as many people as the 9/11 hijackings. That put the USA government -- and the people who democratically control it, on par with Al Qaeda. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-24557333
  - littlestymaar 7y ago
    Being “on par” with such an evil organization shouldn't really be a source of pride…
gmueckl 7y ago
Please define human shield. Is it the family of the terrorist with whom he lives? Friends invited over to spend time with? Where is the difference between people being around coincidentally and people being kept around for protection?
- xupybd 7y ago
  Often it’s worse. It’s schools and Mosques. Places that look really bad to target. War is horrible it’s taking life in the hope you’ll save more.
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  To give just one prominent example: Hamas stores weapons in and fires rockets from hospitals, there's no "coincidentally" - these groups know exactly what they're doing.
  - DSingularity 7y ago
    https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-human-shields-claims-gaza-180618085404724.html https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/fallacy-israel-hum... I wonder what kind of person pushes false narratives dehumanizing a people who have been oppressed by a brutal occupation for decades.
    - sergioj97 7y ago
      I don't think there's a way to know for sure. I guess we could exchange links that described opposite points of view all day long, but we wouldn't reach any meaningful conclusions. However I fail to understand why this human shield topic seems so unbelievable to some people. Terrorist-like groups such as Hamas constantly show a very explicit lack of respect for innocent lives (even for the lives of innocents who share their same culture), the most clear example being attacks directed exclusively towards civilians. You can say "similar" things about the US (and other governments), but certainly not the same thing. One of the obvious reasons for this is that a terrorist group usually faces an extreme disadvantage when it comes to logistics and operational capabilities in general, specially against the US military. Using civilian installations as human shield seems to be in line with the way terrorist groups usually fight back (using civilians lives as a mean to reach their goals). I'm not saying that the fact that it's a plausible possibility makes it a reality. It is a possibility (an unlikely one in my opinion) that a terrorist group decides to avoid killing civilians (refusing also to use this human shields) and tries to dominate the conflict spreading terror by any other means. And it's certainly a possibility that Israel created this hoax, too. I'm only saying it's not that strange seeing terrorist groups doing this kinds of things, without the need to create any fictional narration.
littlestymaar 7y ago
We aren't talking about battles against combatants. We are talking about assassinations of people who could conduct an attack against the US. It's not about winning battles, It's about killing the enemy troops before a battle could even occur.

decoyworker 7y ago

The US military does have qualms against it hence the article and constant strive for more precision. I ask you- what is the alternative? And don't give me the whole, "shouldn't be bombing in the first place" red herring.

gmueckl 7y ago
They may not have a legal right to bomb. Depending on the details of the situation, I'm not sure where to draw the lines between warfare and war crimes. And I am not even considering the fact that some operations were conducted on foreign soil without consent from the local government - another can of worms. And I will ask another question: why bombs? Why remote drones? Why is it impossible to use other means? The assassination of Osama bin Ladin was carried out by soldiers on the ground, after all.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  War crimes are what losers did.
ourmandave 7y ago
I guess it's a step in the right direction, as we were blowing up weddings targets were attending. And we followed up by blowing up the target's funeral figuring the bereaved where fellow operatives. Quite a way to win hearts and minds...
- decoyworker 7y ago
  War sucks what do you want me to tell you? I've been there and served in Afghanistan. I wish this enemy would stand away from civilians and identify themselves clearly.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Your call for identification and distance from civilians is telling. You would be in the right if the enemy was an organized militia. But these terrorists avoid military patterns of behavior/organization. So what is the proper classification? Criminals? If that is true, the US military would be judge, jury and executioner in one.

m0zg 7y ago

>> The fact that the US military has no qualms >> with killing random innocent civilians - >> including children - in their strikes >> against (assumed) terrorists That's bullshit. The US military cares a lot about not causing collateral damage. Wars could be much deadlier, fought much more quickly, and for much less money if it did not.

gmueckl 7y ago
But the US accepts collateral damage willingly by executing attacks that will harm or kill bystanders as part of the plan.
- m0zg 7y ago
  The US would rather have no collateral damage at all. Hence the expensive high precision weapons and all that. If you are suggesting that the US should not kill terrorists, that's not a realistic proposition.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Hm... why do you believe that not killing these people is not an option? Do you have first hand experience with them? I don't. All I have to go on are news stories and occasional annecdotes from people in the affected areas. That does not make a very complete picture. How successful would these people be without any intervention by the US?
    - m0zg 7y ago
      No I don't. Some people objectively deserve to die. See e.g. ISIS, radical islamists, etc.

JohnBooty 7y ago

The fact that the US military has no qualms with killing random innocent civilians Factually untrue. You can say the U.S. military doen't care nearly enough about it. Fine. Now we're in the realm of opinion. I'd probably agree. But "no qualms?" If you want to see a military power with literally "zero qualms" look at regimes like Assad in Syria, using indiscriminate chemical attacks in civilian areas. That is what "no qualms" looks like. Or look at landmines. Suicide bombers in civilian areas. Large-yield nuclear weapons. High-altitude carpet bombing runs. Those are "no qualms" weapons. Even a standard explosive drone-launched Hellfire missile is a weapon of extreme precision and minimal collateral damage compared to any other explosive weapons that have been used for the last hundred years or so. It would be utter madness to spin Hellfire missile strikes as benevolent acts of kindness. They are acts of violence that sometimes hurt and kill innocents and thinking about that should make anybody with a conscience feel ill. But as far as those sorts of things go, characterizing their use as "no qualms with killing random innocent civilians" is just untrue. They are remarkably focused compared to just about any other method of killing people from great distances that humans have managed to invent. There are plenty of injustices perpetrated by the U.S. military. We don't need to invent or exaggerate them. It doesn't help the cause of legitimate criticism.