3 ms·
That's a straw man argument. To apply the principle of generosity, OP is referring to the author's total lack of acknowledging US crimes against Vietnamese civi
by teachrdan 6y ago
That's a straw man argument. To apply the principle of generosity, OP is referring to the author's total lack of acknowledging US crimes against Vietnamese civilians, even as it focuses (quite reasonably!) on the torture of American POWs.
There can be no conversation about the US war in Vietnam without recognizing the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by American forces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Casualties
- nickff 6y agoWhat are you talking about? Not everything you dislike is a logical fallacy. I am not saying that I know for a fact that those targets were military; I am just saying that it was very difficult to differentiate 'legitimate targets' in a situation where the enemy does not advertise their insignia (as required by the Geneva Conventions). The Vietnam War was a war, and wars cause civilian casualties. North Vietnam ran a very effective, organized campaign of terror against South Vietnam and its supporters. The South Vietnamese and American forces were each responsible for many deaths of innocents, through negligence and more isolated malevolence.
- AtlasBarfed 6y agoWhy were we there again? "A war is a war" is a particularly terrible argument given the war in discussion was the Vietnam War
- refurb 6y agoAnd there can be no conversations without recognizing the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of civilians killed by the North Vietnamese/Russia/China. That’s not whataboutism, that’s setting context for why were we’re bombing North Vietnam in the first place. These things don’t happen in a vacuum.