3 ms·

> “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters” Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.

by dbdr 6mo ago

kortilla 6mo ago
[flagged]
- dbdr 6mo ago
  "Corruption" is all but meaningless. It happens in every society and the only people that get prosecuted for them seem to be people outside the elite. /s I don't think holding such views is helpful. Besides, a few people have been prosecuted for war crimes while being on the winning side (or by their own side), some examples: William Calley (US), convicted for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American troops killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians. Donald Payne (UK), for abuse and death of an Iraqi detainee. Charles Graner (US), sentenced to 10 years in prison for the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. However, we can agree those are very few and far between, compared to all crimes committed. But it's more useful to condemn them and advocate for more accountability than to claim it's useless anyways and normalize calls for more crimes.
  - kortilla 6mo ago
    But the huge disconnect between what people call war crimes and what actually gets prosecuted makes the term meaningless. If you go by the definition used in online discourse, every US President this century would be prosecuted for them. There is using nerve gas on children and there is posting a picture of Maduro in hand restraints and a blindfold. Both receive the equal screech of “war crime” by keyboard warriors.
RiverStone 6mo ago
[flagged]
- yodsanklai 6mo ago
  Yes, many Iranians want regime change, but that's not going to happen by bombing everything in the country, and Trump isn't willing to send troops. I'm not sure what your point is actually.
  - RiverStone 6mo ago
    I was responding to a comment about bombing bridges. I quoted an actual conversation i had with an Iranian where they said essentially “go ahead and bomb the bridges”. That got flagged for some reason. I’m simply trying to surface conversations I’ve had with Iranians. So often these Internet conversations occur in a bubble. My point? I guess there’s this idea that Iranians are disgusted with Trump’s comment today. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My wife is Iranian. I’m connected to a large Iranian expat community. They are very pro Trump because of the war. The initial reaction I saw was disappointment with the ceasefire. They want continued pressure on the regime, and they feel that a cease-fire works against that.
    - yodsanklai 6mo ago
      It's not because you've found an Iranian that wants their country destroyed that this is the right thing to do. All military experts agree that bombing a country isn't going to trigger a regime change, and it hasn't so far after weeks of intense bombing. So the answer should be, keep bombing more things and target civilians? Besides, the Iranian expat community is also a bubble, maybe not representative of the ones who are actually bombed.
    - jamaliki 6mo ago
      Iranian expat communities have these radical views because they won't have to live with the consequences.
    - mrbombastic 6mo ago
      You often find expat communities have the exact opposite viewpoint as those that remain, part of the reason they are expats. See cuban expats, nicaraguan expats, not to say they are wrong but they are not a monolith representing all of a civilization. Presumably those standing around the bridges don’t want them bombed.
grumple 6mo ago
War crimes as a concept was invented by the current US hegemony to punish others, not to be bound by. I think about it this way: would I have had any problem with the allies bombing Nazi rallies, even though they were mostly civilians? My answer is absolutely not. I feel the same way when I see pro-Islamic regime or pro-Hezbollah rallies. In fact, I think the limited repercussions for these extremist civilians - and their very tangible support for the regimes - is what keeps these movements alive and powerful. Cost to civilizations - military and civilian alike - is what ends wars.
- Arodex 6mo ago
  We agreed on the concept of war crimes after the horrors of WWII, so that it wouldn't happen again. If you think bombing them is ok, then bombing you (or e.g. Trump supporters - you know, the ones who tried to throw the 2020 election) is ok too. It cuts both ways.

> “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters” Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.

by dbdr 6mo ago

> “bomb them, they’re all regime supporters” Even those regime supporters are civilians. This is literally advocating for a war crime.

kortilla 6mo ago

[flagged]

dbdr 6mo ago
"Corruption" is all but meaningless. It happens in every society and the only people that get prosecuted for them seem to be people outside the elite. /s I don't think holding such views is helpful. Besides, a few people have been prosecuted for war crimes while being on the winning side (or by their own side), some examples: William Calley (US), convicted for his role in the 1968 My Lai massacre, in which American troops killed hundreds of unarmed South Vietnamese civilians. Donald Payne (UK), for abuse and death of an Iraqi detainee. Charles Graner (US), sentenced to 10 years in prison for the abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. However, we can agree those are very few and far between, compared to all crimes committed. But it's more useful to condemn them and advocate for more accountability than to claim it's useless anyways and normalize calls for more crimes.
- kortilla 6mo ago
  But the huge disconnect between what people call war crimes and what actually gets prosecuted makes the term meaningless. If you go by the definition used in online discourse, every US President this century would be prosecuted for them. There is using nerve gas on children and there is posting a picture of Maduro in hand restraints and a blindfold. Both receive the equal screech of “war crime” by keyboard warriors.

RiverStone 6mo ago

[flagged]

yodsanklai 6mo ago
Yes, many Iranians want regime change, but that's not going to happen by bombing everything in the country, and Trump isn't willing to send troops. I'm not sure what your point is actually.
- RiverStone 6mo ago
  I was responding to a comment about bombing bridges. I quoted an actual conversation i had with an Iranian where they said essentially “go ahead and bomb the bridges”. That got flagged for some reason. I’m simply trying to surface conversations I’ve had with Iranians. So often these Internet conversations occur in a bubble. My point? I guess there’s this idea that Iranians are disgusted with Trump’s comment today. That hasn’t been my experience at all. My wife is Iranian. I’m connected to a large Iranian expat community. They are very pro Trump because of the war. The initial reaction I saw was disappointment with the ceasefire. They want continued pressure on the regime, and they feel that a cease-fire works against that.
  - yodsanklai 6mo ago
    It's not because you've found an Iranian that wants their country destroyed that this is the right thing to do. All military experts agree that bombing a country isn't going to trigger a regime change, and it hasn't so far after weeks of intense bombing. So the answer should be, keep bombing more things and target civilians? Besides, the Iranian expat community is also a bubble, maybe not representative of the ones who are actually bombed.
  - jamaliki 6mo ago
    Iranian expat communities have these radical views because they won't have to live with the consequences.
  - mrbombastic 6mo ago
    You often find expat communities have the exact opposite viewpoint as those that remain, part of the reason they are expats. See cuban expats, nicaraguan expats, not to say they are wrong but they are not a monolith representing all of a civilization. Presumably those standing around the bridges don’t want them bombed.

grumple 6mo ago

War crimes as a concept was invented by the current US hegemony to punish others, not to be bound by. I think about it this way: would I have had any problem with the allies bombing Nazi rallies, even though they were mostly civilians? My answer is absolutely not. I feel the same way when I see pro-Islamic regime or pro-Hezbollah rallies. In fact, I think the limited repercussions for these extremist civilians - and their very tangible support for the regimes - is what keeps these movements alive and powerful. Cost to civilizations - military and civilian alike - is what ends wars.

Arodex 6mo ago
We agreed on the concept of war crimes after the horrors of WWII, so that it wouldn't happen again. If you think bombing them is ok, then bombing you (or e.g. Trump supporters - you know, the ones who tried to throw the 2020 election) is ok too. It cuts both ways.