4 ms·

I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it

I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement" how is a submarine commander committing war crimes? by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago
You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people. I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.
Dylan16807 7mo ago
No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity. Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.
locknitpicker 7mo ago
> how is a submarine commander committing war crimes? News reports from both Russia and Ukraine stated he was the commander of K-148 Krasnodar, a submarine that at the time of his command engaged in missile attacks on Ukrainian cities. From a BBC article: > Ukrainian media has said he could have been in command of the vessel when it carried out a missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia in July 2022, which killed 28 people, including three children. Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.
- veltas 7mo ago
  > Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war. Former
  - locknitpicker 7mo ago
    > Former According to reports, he was the commander of the submarine when it was conducting bombing missions on civilian targets in Ukraine. What possibly compels you to believe your "former" qualifier has any relevance?
    - veltas 7mo ago
      Relevant to the accuracy of quote
    - necovek 6mo ago
      According to the quote above, he "could have been at the helm", and his family has claimed he hasn't. Something, something, due process.
- roysting 7mo ago
  Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran? You imply it would be any military officer, anywhere, at any time, retired or not.
  - ta20240528 7mo ago
    For active soldiers, yes - kill them, any time, anywhere. That's what "at war" means. Its not a policing operation.
    - gzread 7mo ago
      This thought - of being legitimately killed at any time anywhere - should scare people. Good! If the reality of war scares you, don't start wars.

applfanboysbgon 7mo ago

You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people. I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.

Dylan16807 7mo ago

No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity. Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.

locknitpicker 7mo ago

> how is a submarine commander committing war crimes? News reports from both Russia and Ukraine stated he was the commander of K-148 Krasnodar, a submarine that at the time of his command engaged in missile attacks on Ukrainian cities. From a BBC article: > Ukrainian media has said he could have been in command of the vessel when it carried out a missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia in July 2022, which killed 28 people, including three children. Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.

veltas 7mo ago
> Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war. Former
- locknitpicker 7mo ago
  > Former According to reports, he was the commander of the submarine when it was conducting bombing missions on civilian targets in Ukraine. What possibly compels you to believe your "former" qualifier has any relevance?
  - veltas 7mo ago
    Relevant to the accuracy of quote
  - necovek 6mo ago
    According to the quote above, he "could have been at the helm", and his family has claimed he hasn't. Something, something, due process.
roysting 7mo ago
Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran? You imply it would be any military officer, anywhere, at any time, retired or not.
- ta20240528 7mo ago
  For active soldiers, yes - kill them, any time, anywhere. That's what "at war" means. Its not a policing operation.
  - gzread 7mo ago
    This thought - of being legitimately killed at any time anywhere - should scare people. Good! If the reality of war scares you, don't start wars.