4 ms·

Killing 500 civilians would be considered a war crime if anyone else except US military does it.

axguscbklp 7y ago
NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them.
- EthanHeilman 7y ago
  >NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Targeting a state owned radio and TV station is well with in the laws of war assuming of course the the radio/TV station is actively aiding the war effort. In this specific case NATO targeted this radio/TV building because it acted as an important command and control node to transmit orders to Serbian military forces. You can read more about it in the U.N.'s report on the investigation of possible NATO warcrimes in the Kosovo war: 'Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' This report also claims with regard to targeting of power facilies "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." >Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them. Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Hospitals are the most protected category of civilian infrastructure according to the laws of armed conflict and Russia bombed them so often there is a wikipedia article about it[1]. [0]: https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospital_bombing_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...
  - levosmetalo 7y ago
    > "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." The winner / the stronger can stretch the fact and the criteria. I'm sure some Bin Laden people considered all the 9/11 targets as legitimate. This still doesn't make neither 9/11 nor deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Serbia right.
  - axguscbklp 7y ago
    The disparity of power between NATO and Serbia was so great that NATO had no need to resort to measures that would endanger and hurt civilians to the degree that the attacks on the Serbian power grid and media did. Even the conflict inside Kosovo could have been resolved by putting boots on the ground. But NATO nations did not want to risk their soldiers, so they killed Serbian civilians instead. >Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Probably true, but I'm just talking about the media uproar, whether or not the uproar had much effect among the US public. The idea that targeting civilian infrastructure is ok because that infrastructure is also being used to support an opponent's military effort seems to me like a slippery slope.

NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them.

EthanHeilman 7y ago
>NATO also deliberately targeted Serbia's power grid and deliberately targeted a radio/TV station during the war. Targeting a state owned radio and TV station is well with in the laws of war assuming of course the the radio/TV station is actively aiding the war effort. In this specific case NATO targeted this radio/TV building because it acted as an important command and control node to transmit orders to Serbian military forces. You can read more about it in the U.N.'s report on the investigation of possible NATO warcrimes in the Kosovo war: 'Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia' This report also claims with regard to targeting of power facilies "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." >Both of those things would cause uproar in the US media if an opponent of US geopolitical interests did them. Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Hospitals are the most protected category of civilian infrastructure according to the laws of armed conflict and Russia bombed them so often there is a wikipedia article about it[1]. [0]: https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 https://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospital_bombing_campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Syrian_hospita...
- levosmetalo 7y ago
  > "74. Of the electrical power transformer stations targeted, one transformer station supplied power to the air defence co-ordination network while the other supplied power to the northern-sector operations centre. Both these facilities were key control elements in the FRY integrated air-defence system." The winner / the stronger can stretch the fact and the criteria. I'm sure some Bin Laden people considered all the 9/11 targets as legitimate. This still doesn't make neither 9/11 nor deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Serbia right.
- axguscbklp 7y ago
  The disparity of power between NATO and Serbia was so great that NATO had no need to resort to measures that would endanger and hurt civilians to the degree that the attacks on the Serbian power grid and media did. Even the conflict inside Kosovo could have been resolved by putting boots on the ground. But NATO nations did not want to risk their soldiers, so they killed Serbian civilians instead. >Russia and the Syrian targeted hospitals regularly for years and while it get coverage people in the US didn't care much able it. Probably true, but I'm just talking about the media uproar, whether or not the uproar had much effect among the US public. The idea that targeting civilian infrastructure is ok because that infrastructure is also being used to support an opponent's military effort seems to me like a slippery slope.