3 ms·
How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?
by pphysch 16d ago
How can anyone take this argument seriously when the DoW was simultaneously committing dozens of extrajudicial executions of small boat users in the Gulf?
- mthoms 16d agoIn all sincerity, people take it seriously because it helps them sleep at night.
- wand3r 16d agoI am not defending this morally, but these are clearly a group of the least competent stewards of the military in a long while. They were "completely clear on OPSEC", with a left-leaning Atlantic reporter in the signal group chat. This bombing also coalesced support in Iran and had a big rally around the flag effect. Data in Iran is hard and the timetable was extremely fast, again, due to incompetence and the inability to constrain a vassal. So its appalling to say, but a bunch of morons with LLMS and outdated targeting, pushed to meet the objectives of corrupt idiots is almost certainly the cause. I personally consider it a war crime, but I am not sure if it meets the legal definition.
- jvanderbot 16d agoWhat is there to take seriously regarding this strike other than the facts as presented? There were 900 strikes in 12h, and only one target involved a strike on a school, and huge coincidence that target was a dozen meters from a military compound and was in fact part of that military compound not long ago. It's quite easy to accept that this was a horrific mistake. Whether you agree with the idea of striking Iran at all is up to you, but once they "went hot", precision strikes on military targets were successful in 900 cases, and it's plausible that one precision strike was issued incorrectly. It doesn't bring back the kiddos. It also doesn't mean it's a war crime. It's right to be angry about that strike or even the larger war if you oppose it, but spurious legal justifications for outrage aren't required - it can be wrong even when legally justified or plausibly just a mistake.
- albatross79 16d ago"the kiddos"
- jvanderbot 16d agoI have no idea why this is in scare quotes. It's a term of endearment, and I'm saddened by their deaths as much as anyone.
- albatross79 16d agoDozens of innocent children were destroyed in a heinous crime. Like they were nothing. They were cherished and loved by their families. It will be a scarring tragedy in all their lives. And some guy is like 'ah, darn, poor kiddos!'
- kyboren 16d agoWelcome to war. War is bad. Innocent people always get caught up in war and suffer from it. We should do our best to avoid war. But, unfortunately, due to a mix of game theoretical incentives, information asymmetry, and human nature, war isn't going away. We can still at least try to minimize innocents' suffering from war, though. It was clearly a tragedy. Very few Americans--certainly I've never met one--support that strike in retrospect. Instead they are angry that such a terrible mistake was possible and they generally want a thorough investigation and targeting procedure reforms to make sure it doesn't happen again. Americans hold their military to a high moral standard. But wars don't have to be fought so cleanly. Certainly the Golden Horde had no compunction about genocide. If acknowledging our shared humanity with innocent victims and expressing remorse for their deaths is ridiculed, then we're primed for a descent into nihilism, wanton cruelty, and mass slaughter. EDIT: @Hikikomori, I cannot reply to your post, but I am happy to engage if you follow HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument > Please don't post shallow dismissals
- 16d ago
- mahboi 16d agoEvery military strike is extrajudicial, question is if they hit a legitimate target.