4 ms·

You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Sometimes they may be a bit sleepy and not do anything. Other times they may get excited "Oh boy a legitima

by somat 3y ago

You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Sometimes they may be a bit sleepy and not do anything. Other times they may get excited "Oh boy a legitimate target" And spend a few million dollars ruining some lives.

krapp 3y ago
You think the US gives a damn about "legitimate targets?"
- csomar 3y ago
  The US defines legitimacy. So...
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  sure. we dont bomb people for fun and put it on pay per view.
  - giraffe_lady 3y ago
    nah we hand the bombs to israel and let them do it.
  - andreykocevski 3y ago
    Not for fun but for oil and riches. Also maybe a tad bit of fun hence the wikileaks leaks
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    You haven't checked LiveLeak then. There's plenty of leaked footage of US soldiers using afghan civilians as target practice for shits and giggles, plus all the civilian drone strikes.
    - somat 3y ago
      While there is a certain amount of truth in that. I also note that the opposing troops were unable to operate in a uniformed manner. making them indistinguishable from civilians.
  - lenkite 3y ago
    You clearly haven't seen the U.S. bombs used deliberately on pure civilian targets in Yemen. All targeting data also provided by the U.S.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      I haven't but am willing to change my mind, source? I'm looking for Deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians.
      - lenkite 3y ago
        Depends on your definition of deliberate and knowingly bombing of civilians. If you give all intelligence to your Saudi partners - including residences of Houthi fighters, if you give the weapons to bomb them, if you give the fuel to re-supply the fighters, if you give the training to fly them and only wash your hands of the final decision - does that make one not liable ? https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airstrikes-intl/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airs... https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/ https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yemen-us-made-bomb-used-in-deadly-air-strike-on-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yeme... https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi-escalation-and-u-s-complicity/ https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi...
        s1artibartfast 3y ago
        well, yes, I think there is some moral culpability there. But as a matter of fact, I think that is still different than deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians by the US- let alone killing them for target practice and fun, as some claimed.
s1artibartfast 3y ago
This isn't some quiet base in an allied country. The US has been fighting an undeclared war against the Syrian government 2014, occupies part of the country, and has military bases in that country, and you think they are "sleepy", as if they are quietly minding their own business'.
- megous 3y ago
  At least don't rewrite history. Fighting was mostly against ISIL.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    Not the history I remember. ISIL was an afterthought. Everything I remember was about evil dictators, Redlines, chemical weapons, Heroic Kurdish separatists, and Russian/Iranian allies.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      Still, US striked Asad forces handful times and was not directly involved into civil war, otherwise Asad would be gone already
  - meiraleal 3y ago
    ? Do you have any idea of what happened there at the time? ISIL was fighting against Syria Government just like the US. The US gave ISIL their initial funding and guns to fight Assad.
    - megous 3y ago
      Yes, I do. There are very many parties to that conflict. US did not fight Syrian government forces other than to repel them from attacking US bases and US allies (SDF), and one lone bombing by Trump of some airfield "because of the babies".
- lenkite 3y ago
  Occupying the country and also stealing Syrian oil behind the scenes. But, hey, that's what the good guys do.
csomar 3y ago
I am not targeting you personally but am seeing a bunch of similarly formed comments around the Internet (mess with the US military and find out?); and am not sure what's that coming from. > You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Lots of people are ballsy then. People (or terrorists) have been attacking the US military and its bases for the last 70 years or so without stop. Many (most?) times to the disadvantage of the US (Vietnam, Iraq, and recently Afghanistan).
- CapricornNoble 3y ago
  > and am not sure what's that coming from A lot of it comes from one particular incident in Syria where a contingent of Wagner troops + local Syrians were on the receiving end of an overwhelming application of US air support. Around the same time, we killed the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani after "credible" evidence he was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq. So those were two high-profile "FAFO" incidents that have had Americans thumping their chests for years now.
- somat 3y ago
  Terrorism by definition is an attack on civilians. An attack on a military target is not terrorism. Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they are a legitimate military target. However as they they operate in such close proximity to civilians means any attack will cause heavy civilian causalities. Disadvantage is a strange term. I would have used "operate more efficiently in cost/operation category but loosing in the causality/territory numbers. persisting until the US gets tired and goes home" But that does not exactly roll off the tongue. Specifically, at no point in those conflicts was the US military at a disadvantage. Iraq or Afghanistan were unable to operate as an independent nation after the first week. You know the infamous 2003 Bush photo of him on a carrier with a big "job done" banner. we all laugh at how incorrect that claim was, but he was not entirely wrong ether. At that point there was no real Iraq military left, it was all insurgents, un-uniformed guerrilla troops with no infrastructure that could project no power. The North Vietnamese were more successful, maintaining a government. But could do little to prevent US air superiority. or gain territory until the US left. Korea was perhaps the most successful, managing to restore territory to the original demarcation line. But not past that, leading the the stalemate left in that area today.
willcipriano 3y ago
70% of active duty service members are overweight. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/nearly-70-of-active-service-members-are-overweight-report-finds https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/... If there was a time to attack, it's now.
- gemstones 3y ago
  Being overweight is a lot less of a disadvantage in a fight than you might think.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Then why haven't we won a war in 20 years?
    - somat 3y ago
      The US wins wars, no problem. What it appears unable to do is win the peace afterward.

by somat 3y ago

krapp 3y ago

You think the US gives a damn about "legitimate targets?"

csomar 3y ago
The US defines legitimacy. So...
s1artibartfast 3y ago
sure. we dont bomb people for fun and put it on pay per view.
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  nah we hand the bombs to israel and let them do it.
- andreykocevski 3y ago
  Not for fun but for oil and riches. Also maybe a tad bit of fun hence the wikileaks leaks
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  You haven't checked LiveLeak then. There's plenty of leaked footage of US soldiers using afghan civilians as target practice for shits and giggles, plus all the civilian drone strikes.
  - somat 3y ago
    While there is a certain amount of truth in that. I also note that the opposing troops were unable to operate in a uniformed manner. making them indistinguishable from civilians.
- lenkite 3y ago
  You clearly haven't seen the U.S. bombs used deliberately on pure civilian targets in Yemen. All targeting data also provided by the U.S.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I haven't but am willing to change my mind, source? I'm looking for Deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians.
    - lenkite 3y ago
      Depends on your definition of deliberate and knowingly bombing of civilians. If you give all intelligence to your Saudi partners - including residences of Houthi fighters, if you give the weapons to bomb them, if you give the fuel to re-supply the fighters, if you give the training to fly them and only wash your hands of the final decision - does that make one not liable ? https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airstrikes-intl/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2018/09/world/yemen-airs... https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/ https://time.com/4528393/yemen-saudi-arabia-strike-wedding/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yemen-us-made-bomb-used-in-deadly-air-strike-on-civilians/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2019/09/yeme... https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi-escalation-and-u-s-complicity/ https://quincyinst.org/report/the-yemen-war-in-numbers-saudi...
      - s1artibartfast 3y ago
        well, yes, I think there is some moral culpability there. But as a matter of fact, I think that is still different than deliberate and knowingly bombing civilians by the US- let alone killing them for target practice and fun, as some claimed.

s1artibartfast 3y ago

This isn't some quiet base in an allied country. The US has been fighting an undeclared war against the Syrian government 2014, occupies part of the country, and has military bases in that country, and you think they are "sleepy", as if they are quietly minding their own business'.

megous 3y ago
At least don't rewrite history. Fighting was mostly against ISIL.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  Not the history I remember. ISIL was an afterthought. Everything I remember was about evil dictators, Redlines, chemical weapons, Heroic Kurdish separatists, and Russian/Iranian allies.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    Still, US striked Asad forces handful times and was not directly involved into civil war, otherwise Asad would be gone already
- meiraleal 3y ago
  ? Do you have any idea of what happened there at the time? ISIL was fighting against Syria Government just like the US. The US gave ISIL their initial funding and guns to fight Assad.
  - megous 3y ago
    Yes, I do. There are very many parties to that conflict. US did not fight Syrian government forces other than to repel them from attacking US bases and US allies (SDF), and one lone bombing by Trump of some airfield "because of the babies".
lenkite 3y ago
Occupying the country and also stealing Syrian oil behind the scenes. But, hey, that's what the good guys do.

csomar 3y ago

I am not targeting you personally but am seeing a bunch of similarly formed comments around the Internet (mess with the US military and find out?); and am not sure what's that coming from. > You gotta be a bit ballsy attacking the US military. Lots of people are ballsy then. People (or terrorists) have been attacking the US military and its bases for the last 70 years or so without stop. Many (most?) times to the disadvantage of the US (Vietnam, Iraq, and recently Afghanistan).

CapricornNoble 3y ago
> and am not sure what's that coming from A lot of it comes from one particular incident in Syria where a contingent of Wagner troops + local Syrians were on the receiving end of an overwhelming application of US air support. Around the same time, we killed the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani after "credible" evidence he was planning attacks on US forces in Iraq. So those were two high-profile "FAFO" incidents that have had Americans thumping their chests for years now.
somat 3y ago
Terrorism by definition is an attack on civilians. An attack on a military target is not terrorism. Police are a grey area. As an armed uniformed force they are a legitimate military target. However as they they operate in such close proximity to civilians means any attack will cause heavy civilian causalities. Disadvantage is a strange term. I would have used "operate more efficiently in cost/operation category but loosing in the causality/territory numbers. persisting until the US gets tired and goes home" But that does not exactly roll off the tongue. Specifically, at no point in those conflicts was the US military at a disadvantage. Iraq or Afghanistan were unable to operate as an independent nation after the first week. You know the infamous 2003 Bush photo of him on a carrier with a big "job done" banner. we all laugh at how incorrect that claim was, but he was not entirely wrong ether. At that point there was no real Iraq military left, it was all insurgents, un-uniformed guerrilla troops with no infrastructure that could project no power. The North Vietnamese were more successful, maintaining a government. But could do little to prevent US air superiority. or gain territory until the US left. Korea was perhaps the most successful, managing to restore territory to the original demarcation line. But not past that, leading the the stalemate left in that area today.

willcipriano 3y ago

70% of active duty service members are overweight. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/nearly-70-of-active-service-members-are-overweight-report-finds https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/10/13/... If there was a time to attack, it's now.

gemstones 3y ago
Being overweight is a lot less of a disadvantage in a fight than you might think.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Then why haven't we won a war in 20 years?
  - somat 3y ago
    The US wins wars, no problem. What it appears unable to do is win the peace afterward.