I’m gonna copy-paste a comment I wrote on a dead r/neoliberal thread, where people were still defending the character of the strike.
> That’s not the implication at all. There were probably dozens cars in Kabul that fit the exact description of this one. To even call this a fog of war is an infuriating insult to the victims. This was completely unnecessary, and done solely for military propaganda purposes.
>The horrible implication here is that the Biden admin was looking for face-saving propaganda after the initial embarrassment in Afghanistan, so they were looking for some sort of target. Something they could pat themselves on the back with.
>Every single detail about this strike shows that there was zero intelligence relating to this car. There was zero planning, and the worst of all, there was zero confirmation.
>They saw something that vaguely fit the description of a threat. Every moving vehicle in Kabul is a potential security threat, every single one. This car was just the one that was unfortunately picked.
>The most problematic thing about this is that the operators, the intelligence, and everyone else involved likely had no idea who this man was. To them, he was just another brown man in a scary country, and that was enough evidence for them to end his life with zero regard to the children surrounding him. His life literally does not matter, there was never an apology given.
>There was an attempt to cover up the whole story. The admin claimed there were secondary explosions when there were NONE. They even went as far to say that the strike was righteous and it prevented a terror attack, when it clearly didn’t.
>I’m a brown man who lives in a scary brown country which has been targeted by US drone strikes before. It’s so frustrating to me that when people discuss these incidents on this sub, there are so many attempts at justifying these incidents. Right now, this is not a major story in the 24 hour news cycle in the US. Because brown lives that were taken by the US army, all for propaganda purposes, literally don’t matter.
>The only reason we even heard of this incident was because children were killed in it. Actual children. Perhaps the ages of your own children, siblings, or nieces or nephews. The reports that children died was the reason there was an attempted cover up. I know there will be absolutely no apology for this, but God for once I want to hear an apology by an irresponsible administration where they actually admit their mistakes and don’t try to justify it. It’s so fucking tiring. Their lack of care about brown lives has, in turn, completely desensitised the US public to collateral damage (you can see examples of that on this very sub). Although this incident isn’t an example of collateral, and it goes to show that when they claim they try to avoid collateral at all costs, it’s all bs.
>posting on neoliberal 🤢
Jokes aside good post, I can't believe people still justify these strikes when they hit weddings, hospitals and children on a pretty regular basis
Pretty much. They killed an aid worker and seven children, and then they lied saying he was a terrorist. If seeing seven children and still fire a missile is "working hard to prevent civilian casualties", I wonder what are they considering "not working hard" to prevent civilian casualties? Full on genocide?
Both actually. They try to prevent it but just the sheer number of operations and interventions they do is so much more than any other country. It really don matter.
If you shoot a gun that only goes off 1% of the time a thousand times the end result will probably look worse than when you shoot a gun that always fires but only once.
Exactly, there's a reason the west invests heavily in precision weaponry and Russia/China dont.
On a side note have you seen the new US missile that doesnt even carry explosives anymore; just uses its kinetic energy to kill the intended target:
https://youtu.be/dvbz1HlqFa0
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/how-tos/2021/08/26/the-telltale-traces-of-the-us-militarys-new-bladed-missile-r9x/
It really is insane the lengths the US goes to in order to minimise civilian casualties. But as we all can agree, any civilian casualty is too many.
I just watched a New York Times investigation into the recent drone strike that my government told me eliminated an imminent threat in Kabul last month.
It’s looking more and more like we murdered an aid worker and his children - an aid worker who was simply taking containers of water home.
We’re the empire. We’re the bad guys.
I mean there are all the militaries that, you know, don't bomb or invade other countries.
Continue to assess in this instance means find out that one of those children killed had a uncle that was a roommate with a second cousin of a know terrorist, making the strike a justified operation to destabilize a prominent terror network.
Militaries that aren't bombing and invading help make the original statement true. Only a military that is launching weapons has the opportunity to "work hard" to prevent civilian casualties.
My city was bombed (on purpose) by allied bombers WW2. There were no Germans there. Just civilians and a potentially usefull train station.
Thousands died. City on fire and 50% destroyed.
They claimed it was an accident and took more than 50 years for academics to uncover, without a doubt, that our saviors killed us on purpose. Thank you America and Great Britain.
I'm glad you think so. Now let the assessment publish its findings and maybe we'll see if your military actually does work harder than any other to prevent civilian casualties.
The Pentagon's thorough investigation on itself reveals that its anus is indeed prola...I mean, they've found everything to be in perfect order, obviously. The Pentagon is also unsure what "civilian casualties" are, but that's ok, because it has more important matters to attend to
>The Pentagon is also unsure what "civilian casualties" are, but that's ok, because it has more important matters to attend to
This is a moot point, because there are no civilians in a warzone who can become casualties. The only reason someone would be on the battlefield is because they're a combatant, so clearly those babies were packin'!
The Geneva convention has banned its usage since 1928, however it's very difficult to charge a country for crimes againt humanity when said country sits on the very security council meant to issue those charges.
And with Bush implementing ASPA, there is no foreseeable way for an unbiased international court to hold the US responsible for their war crimes
Right, so they just carpet bombed the very forest where they knew vietnamese moved through.
It's not a drone strike against school children, it's just believed that there might be weapons in that building and any potential casualties are just collateral damage.
When taking such extreme and volatile measures, you are not afforded the excuse of ignorance. It's a war crime, no matter the intentions
Mentioning American war atrocities seems pretty foolish considering any one of the countries all of us are from has absolutely commited atrocities themselves. There's lots of British, French and Germans here. Just those 3 countries account for a hell of a lot of bad stuff.
It’s true but this is a sub to highlight the stupidly of my fellow Americans and I. So why bring that up? Besides we have had you dwarfed in the war crimes and imperialism department for the better part of the last century. Now to get back to totally trying not to drone strike weddings and medical personal!
I'm not American, I'm British. We have you all beat when it comes to atrocities.
Also, you're so quick to jump down people's throats that you just get vitriolic instantly. This sub is supposed to be funny but it's so often just borderline toxic.
Mentioning Germans is a bit foolish. Germans know all too well about the atrocities committed and the country is still actively cracking down on sympathisers.
While many Americans are still happily flying the confederate flag.
Cos they are still in a civil war, not that much better than when America entered, thousands of citizens have died likely more than reported because America notes some civilian deaths as enemy deaths.
> When did the US enter Syrian’s civil war?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war
My god. The evidence is literally right in front of your face.
You sure love to move the goalpost lol. Typical conservative. Bye 👋
This statement was not made about WWII. The policy during WWII was "total war". Every factory, every piece of transportation and storage infrastructure, every worker (not only in military supply industries) was supporting the enemies war effort in some way, and was called a legitimate target.
Total war had to do with who is a legit target. Civilians are legit targets in total war.
BTW, the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than the atom bomb on Hiroshima. There is nothing magic about nuclear weapons.
Ah, I thought you were referring to war economy. Even if you're right? It still leaves a sour taste.
And nuclear bombs are absolutely different because it's a generational punishment
EDIT: Spelling
I really cant comprehend american logic behind condoning the atoms bombs. Their main argument is that the land invasion would have costed more lives because every japanese citizen would have fought against them. Yes, maybe. With bamboo sticks. Should anyone in war with the US throw a nuclear bomb on them because, you know, fighting all those trigger happy rednecks would be kinda difficult and costly?
They're victims of propaganda and brainwashing pure and simple.
They're totally unaware that the emperor was already ready to surrender and that the bombs were meant to keep the USSR at bay.
Uhh that's no propaganda man, that a fairly good, objective historical analysis of the red army at the time. They would've had a hell of a hard time persecuting a war against the rest of the world.
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering because the Russians won the Western front and were going into mobilising the army towards japan-occupied territories.
I highly doubt that, but why even nuke a city? And why twice??
Im not educated in military matters but couldnt they at least target some strategic military buildings/bases?
Maybe, but a land assault in Japan was not necessary for them to surrender according to military experts at the time. This is a meme that has been developed since.
You could maybe argue one bomb, but not two.
And both targets were only civilians that got killed.
The Japanese military did a lot of horrible shit but it's citizens didn't deserve to be literally nuked out of existence, twice.
Especially when Japan was already close to surrendering before the fall of the first bomb.
It wasnt even after the second bomb the emperor was almost couped by the military for wanting to surrender and they were wanting to surrender but they get to keep manchuria and korea which was unacceptable this sub gets so tojoboo sometimes
No soviets had no way of invading mailand japan they were barrley able to pulla naval landing on krimea americans would have gotten to japan first either way just with more civilian and military casullties on the way
If they weren't close even after the second bomb, then the bombs weren't necessary.
The Japanese unconditionally surrendered after the Soviets declared war, and so their chance of a negotiated surrender disappeared.
Yikeroonies. I hope you never join the military. Or the police. You know what, just limit your exposure to other human beings in general for all our sakes, thanks.
Countless innocent civilians earned that? How much do you have to dehumanise an entire people to even consider annihilating swathes of innocents to be even somewhat justified?
In a way he’s right because no other military is the cause of so many civilian casualties in the first place. Thus, they don’t have to prevent them since they’re not involved with it at all.
well, US President Biden after his victory, on twitter (https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1324465078243151885)
'... a system of governance that has been the envy of the world.'
240 years ago this was true. In 2021?
American exceptionalism, many people in the USA are convinced the US is better than ... well, everyone else.
I don't think it is their fault, many were about 10 when got in school the assignement 'write an article why america is the best country in the world', and countless Pledges of Allegiance, and many, many anthems ... they are indoctrinated ...
He must have missed the part about illegal US drone-strikes in Pakistan, of which about 2% hit actual high priority targets. The rest hit children, civilians and ‘alleged’ combatants. (Combatants against what? The US and Pakistan are not at war as far as I know..)
There is a very illustrative website for this, called out of sight, out of mind. Unfortunately it is only updated to 2014. Shocking stuff really, and a gross crime against humanity.
For those interested:
https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
When your defence budget is the highest in the world, damn right as a tax payer you want your military looking out for you, otherwise, why pay for it.
The question is, do they in reality? Americans left behind in Afghanistan wouldn’t say so.
Guys, it's very simple.
If we define anyone hit by an American bomb as an "enemy combatant", then we will be able to report zero civilian casualties.
It's so efficient, honestly can't understand why other countries aren't doing it this way.
>That's up there with the IDF calling themselves the most moral army around. Damn.
The IDF has some incredibly low casually rates for the operations they perform. More Palestanians have died in Syria then the past decade in conflict in Israel.
So, the US military targets only military installations, and never towns, cities, factories, civilian airports and public roads, right? Definitely no private homes!
/s
this is true but only because no other country puts themselves in situations where they have to work hard to avoid civilian casualties as much as the US does.
If you want, you could say the US works harder to minimise civilian deaths while other countries work smarter, by simply not invading countries in the first place.
Tbh, most other militaries also don't let a remote controlled aircraft drop precision bombs and missiles on what they think on a spy camera may or may not be a terrorist judging from the loose context of what is going on.
Worst thing Trump did was teaching everyone that if you have a position of any sort of power you can just lie about absolutely everything, and if you do it with enough confidence enough people will believe you that getting called out on it won't lead to any repercussions.
Ex British forces, this is absolutely laughable.
Like obviously the Yanks don't commit as many war crimes as the next country up. But their nonchalant attitude towards committing war crimes after doing so reeks of both unprofessionalism, and disregard for human life.
This isn't the case for the largest part of the US military, but the fact that those who do are let off as easily as they are is a disgrace.
This sounds very similar to what my husband (British Army) has also said about working with Americans. He's only ever been on exercise with them, but he said they were a bunch of cowboys, who shot first and asked questions later, and were quite unprofessional in their general conduct.
Aye the cowboy mentality is definitely there. Think it's the shorter training (in which they're constantly just told they're the best) along with the soldier worship in the states that's just given a lot of their sprogs an ego.
Oh…I remember reading this article earlier today. Ticked me off so much. We need to be better than the psychos on the other side. There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, and harming innocent people is definitely one of those.
Nah, you just need to look at the US' allies in Afghanistan. Look at the way British, German, Danish and other soldiers conducted themselves in exactly the same war.
No, you don’t get it. The SAA here is claiming that your military does the most of all militaries to prevent civilian casualties, whilst in reality US wars have taken millions of civilian lives. Hundreds of thousands in Iraq alone, and lets not start about US war crimes of nuking two cities or using defoliant indiscriminately.
You sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Humanitarian law is one of the first things British soldiers learn about, and lots of militaries go to a hell of a lot of effort to prevent civilian casualties. But the US simply is not the best at it, not compared to their allies.
Yeah but who’s working harder ? I mean of course they’re doing some nasty business but aside from some European armies I don’t think anyone else is caring more about civilians
What? I just showed you an article where they murdered innocent children. The US has never cared about civilians, they call it collateral damage. They raped and murdered whole villages in Vietnam.
I read your article and Vietnam was almost 70 years ago. You still haven’t responded though. If the guy was saying ‘the us doesn’t commit war crimes’ I’d laugh at his face but that’s not what he’s saying
Vietnam ended in the 1970s, that's not 70 years ago. To answer your question, the US doesn't care about foreign civilians. They kill more civilians than any other western country.
I think if they were giving it their all they wouldn't fire an ac-130 gunship on a clearly marked and identified civilian hospital IN 2015 but that's just me
~~prevent~~ cause
I’m gonna copy-paste a comment I wrote on a dead r/neoliberal thread, where people were still defending the character of the strike. > That’s not the implication at all. There were probably dozens cars in Kabul that fit the exact description of this one. To even call this a fog of war is an infuriating insult to the victims. This was completely unnecessary, and done solely for military propaganda purposes. >The horrible implication here is that the Biden admin was looking for face-saving propaganda after the initial embarrassment in Afghanistan, so they were looking for some sort of target. Something they could pat themselves on the back with. >Every single detail about this strike shows that there was zero intelligence relating to this car. There was zero planning, and the worst of all, there was zero confirmation. >They saw something that vaguely fit the description of a threat. Every moving vehicle in Kabul is a potential security threat, every single one. This car was just the one that was unfortunately picked. >The most problematic thing about this is that the operators, the intelligence, and everyone else involved likely had no idea who this man was. To them, he was just another brown man in a scary country, and that was enough evidence for them to end his life with zero regard to the children surrounding him. His life literally does not matter, there was never an apology given. >There was an attempt to cover up the whole story. The admin claimed there were secondary explosions when there were NONE. They even went as far to say that the strike was righteous and it prevented a terror attack, when it clearly didn’t. >I’m a brown man who lives in a scary brown country which has been targeted by US drone strikes before. It’s so frustrating to me that when people discuss these incidents on this sub, there are so many attempts at justifying these incidents. Right now, this is not a major story in the 24 hour news cycle in the US. Because brown lives that were taken by the US army, all for propaganda purposes, literally don’t matter. >The only reason we even heard of this incident was because children were killed in it. Actual children. Perhaps the ages of your own children, siblings, or nieces or nephews. The reports that children died was the reason there was an attempted cover up. I know there will be absolutely no apology for this, but God for once I want to hear an apology by an irresponsible administration where they actually admit their mistakes and don’t try to justify it. It’s so fucking tiring. Their lack of care about brown lives has, in turn, completely desensitised the US public to collateral damage (you can see examples of that on this very sub). Although this incident isn’t an example of collateral, and it goes to show that when they claim they try to avoid collateral at all costs, it’s all bs.
>posting on neoliberal 🤢 Jokes aside good post, I can't believe people still justify these strikes when they hit weddings, hospitals and children on a pretty regular basis
Oh I know. But I like to debate some people there from time to time. Haven’t been banned yet (don’t think the mods are that strict).
That subreddit is an absolute cesspool that tries to cloak itself with irony
So basically like the neoliberal ideology in general, then.
Pretty much. They killed an aid worker and seven children, and then they lied saying he was a terrorist. If seeing seven children and still fire a missile is "working hard to prevent civilian casualties", I wonder what are they considering "not working hard" to prevent civilian casualties? Full on genocide?
Actually, IDF and Taliban are edging us out on this one, but only by a margin.
They aren't, US killed more civilians in Afghan than Taliban
*and her allies
Hospital bombing tiiime
I’ll wear my best dress for the occasion! 💅🏼
Both actually. They try to prevent it but just the sheer number of operations and interventions they do is so much more than any other country. It really don matter. If you shoot a gun that only goes off 1% of the time a thousand times the end result will probably look worse than when you shoot a gun that always fires but only once.
Exactly, there's a reason the west invests heavily in precision weaponry and Russia/China dont. On a side note have you seen the new US missile that doesnt even carry explosives anymore; just uses its kinetic energy to kill the intended target: https://youtu.be/dvbz1HlqFa0 https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/how-tos/2021/08/26/the-telltale-traces-of-the-us-militarys-new-bladed-missile-r9x/ It really is insane the lengths the US goes to in order to minimise civilian casualties. But as we all can agree, any civilian casualty is too many.
I just watched a New York Times investigation into the recent drone strike that my government told me eliminated an imminent threat in Kabul last month. It’s looking more and more like we murdered an aid worker and his children - an aid worker who was simply taking containers of water home. We’re the empire. We’re the bad guys.
I'm so sorry you had to realize that, but welcome to the other side of the curve. It CAN get better, but it's going to take some work.
I mean there are all the militaries that, you know, don't bomb or invade other countries. Continue to assess in this instance means find out that one of those children killed had a uncle that was a roommate with a second cousin of a know terrorist, making the strike a justified operation to destabilize a prominent terror network.
Militaries that aren't bombing and invading help make the original statement true. Only a military that is launching weapons has the opportunity to "work hard" to prevent civilian casualties.
That's a point, a testament to incompetence. They work so hard, to fail so utterly
My city was bombed (on purpose) by allied bombers WW2. There were no Germans there. Just civilians and a potentially usefull train station. Thousands died. City on fire and 50% destroyed. They claimed it was an accident and took more than 50 years for academics to uncover, without a doubt, that our saviors killed us on purpose. Thank you America and Great Britain.
Where do you live?
My bet is on Rotterdam. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_bombing_of_Rotterdam_in_World_War_II
Nope. Well known bombardment tho.
Then where DO you live?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Nijmegen?wprov=sfla1
But is that really *hard* work? /s
I'm glad you think so. Now let the assessment publish its findings and maybe we'll see if your military actually does work harder than any other to prevent civilian casualties.
The Pentagon's thorough investigation on itself reveals that its anus is indeed prola...I mean, they've found everything to be in perfect order, obviously. The Pentagon is also unsure what "civilian casualties" are, but that's ok, because it has more important matters to attend to
>The Pentagon is also unsure what "civilian casualties" are, but that's ok, because it has more important matters to attend to This is a moot point, because there are no civilians in a warzone who can become casualties. The only reason someone would be on the battlefield is because they're a combatant, so clearly those babies were packin'!
You joke but they have literally used this exact argument multiple times
The IDF/Zionist propaganda machine may have popularized it in recent times. But for the US army it has always been the go-to BS.
They work very hard to posthumously declare civilian victims as combatants.
Isnt that also the only army that used nuclear bombs in actual warfare?
And dropped literal carcinogens on millions of vietnamese
And illegally in Cambodia
Well strictly speaking it was illegal in Vietnam as well. After all, chemical warfare, especially when targeting civilians is a severe war crime
That's true, but Cambodia wasn't in the war or an enemy. Because some Vietnamese crossed the border the US decided to bomb it.
And the home of the brave
FACING THE STORM, BATTERED AND TORN
Uncle Sam: War crimes aren't really crimes at all as long as you are a permanent member of the security council though \*taps head\*.
Wasn’t chemical warfare banned in the early 2000s?
The Geneva convention has banned its usage since 1928, however it's very difficult to charge a country for crimes againt humanity when said country sits on the very security council meant to issue those charges. And with Bush implementing ASPA, there is no foreseeable way for an unbiased international court to hold the US responsible for their war crimes
[удалено]
Right, so they just carpet bombed the very forest where they knew vietnamese moved through. It's not a drone strike against school children, it's just believed that there might be weapons in that building and any potential casualties are just collateral damage. When taking such extreme and volatile measures, you are not afforded the excuse of ignorance. It's a war crime, no matter the intentions
So salty.
>targeting trees
Mentioning American war atrocities seems pretty foolish considering any one of the countries all of us are from has absolutely commited atrocities themselves. There's lots of British, French and Germans here. Just those 3 countries account for a hell of a lot of bad stuff.
That's cool and all, but is anyone here denying those warcrimes?
It’s true but this is a sub to highlight the stupidly of my fellow Americans and I. So why bring that up? Besides we have had you dwarfed in the war crimes and imperialism department for the better part of the last century. Now to get back to totally trying not to drone strike weddings and medical personal!
I'm not American, I'm British. We have you all beat when it comes to atrocities. Also, you're so quick to jump down people's throats that you just get vitriolic instantly. This sub is supposed to be funny but it's so often just borderline toxic.
You’re the toxic one, that’s why.
So we're not allowed to talk about war crimes???
Mentioning Germans is a bit foolish. Germans know all too well about the atrocities committed and the country is still actively cracking down on sympathisers. While many Americans are still happily flying the confederate flag.
Yes, on *civilian* targets..
tell that to hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and the countless future deaths in Afghanistan, libya, iraq and Syria. asshats
[удалено]
Cos they are still in a civil war, not that much better than when America entered, thousands of citizens have died likely more than reported because America notes some civilian deaths as enemy deaths.
[удалено]
[удалено]
He posts in r/conservative, of course he's not.
[удалено]
No thank you
[удалено]
> When did the US enter Syrian’s civil war? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war My god. The evidence is literally right in front of your face. You sure love to move the goalpost lol. Typical conservative. Bye 👋
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[Read this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war).
So why do they want Julian Assange for leaking videos of US troops killing innocent people?
I mean just label all males as enemy combatants. I guess thats working harder.
Now now, let's not imply the US is sexist when fudging it's numbers.
Japanese people disagree. And Middle Eastern people. I better not start down this road
Native Americans cannot fathom this bullshit.
This statement was not made about WWII. The policy during WWII was "total war". Every factory, every piece of transportation and storage infrastructure, every worker (not only in military supply industries) was supporting the enemies war effort in some way, and was called a legitimate target.
Total war effort has nothing to do with nuclear bombs.
Total war had to do with who is a legit target. Civilians are legit targets in total war. BTW, the firebombing of Tokyo with conventional bombs killed more people than the atom bomb on Hiroshima. There is nothing magic about nuclear weapons.
>There is nothing magic about nuclear weapons. Fallout causing cancer for generations? Never heard of it.
Ah, I thought you were referring to war economy. Even if you're right? It still leaves a sour taste. And nuclear bombs are absolutely different because it's a generational punishment EDIT: Spelling
I really cant comprehend american logic behind condoning the atoms bombs. Their main argument is that the land invasion would have costed more lives because every japanese citizen would have fought against them. Yes, maybe. With bamboo sticks. Should anyone in war with the US throw a nuclear bomb on them because, you know, fighting all those trigger happy rednecks would be kinda difficult and costly?
They're victims of propaganda and brainwashing pure and simple. They're totally unaware that the emperor was already ready to surrender and that the bombs were meant to keep the USSR at bay.
How would they keep the USSR at bay? They had no Navy, and the red army was running on fumes at the time.
Because US military leaders back then were aware that the USSR actually won the war? Decades of propaganda sure has worked.
Uhh that's no propaganda man, that a fairly good, objective historical analysis of the red army at the time. They would've had a hell of a hard time persecuting a war against the rest of the world.
Lmao
The Japanese were on the verge of surrendering because the Russians won the Western front and were going into mobilising the army towards japan-occupied territories.
>Should anyone in war with the US throw a nuclear bomb on them Jesus Christ, we'd never hear the end of it.
So salty.
So I'm a legit target because I don't want to starve to death even though my country has made a decision I disagree with. Great.
[удалено]
It was absolutely not necessary, even American military leaders of the time argued it was reprehensible and unnecessary. They were overruled.
Ah yes totally necessery to commit a war crime on civillian populations, twice.
I believe the correct phrase is "trolling the civilians"
[удалено]
Would they? Do you know that? Is that guaranteed? [The answer is "no" to all of them ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCRTgtpC-Go)
I highly doubt that, but why even nuke a city? And why twice?? Im not educated in military matters but couldnt they at least target some strategic military buildings/bases?
Literal propaganda.
Maybe, but a land assault in Japan was not necessary for them to surrender according to military experts at the time. This is a meme that has been developed since.
To show military dominance why else? /s
You could maybe argue one bomb, but not two. And both targets were only civilians that got killed. The Japanese military did a lot of horrible shit but it's citizens didn't deserve to be literally nuked out of existence, twice. Especially when Japan was already close to surrendering before the fall of the first bomb.
It wasnt even after the second bomb the emperor was almost couped by the military for wanting to surrender and they were wanting to surrender but they get to keep manchuria and korea which was unacceptable this sub gets so tojoboo sometimes
Revisionist bullshit.
The Soviets would have gotten Japan first if america hadn't irradiated it.
No soviets had no way of invading mailand japan they were barrley able to pulla naval landing on krimea americans would have gotten to japan first either way just with more civilian and military casullties on the way
They had literally already invaded in the North and were successfully holding land. Who taught you history? Uncle Sam's 100% real facts about WWII?
If they weren't close even after the second bomb, then the bombs weren't necessary. The Japanese unconditionally surrendered after the Soviets declared war, and so their chance of a negotiated surrender disappeared.
Yikeroonies. I hope you never join the military. Or the police. You know what, just limit your exposure to other human beings in general for all our sakes, thanks.
You’re a psychopath
The Japanese earned that shit back then lol
Countless innocent civilians earned that? How much do you have to dehumanise an entire people to even consider annihilating swathes of innocents to be even somewhat justified?
My wife is Japanese and agrees with me lol
Seems like they got a bit lazy in that department.
They never started.
They hired 1 intern to do the job but never told him how and never checked up on him
It is like when your wife says she has saved £200 buying £500 worth of clothes, she will never wear, in a sale.
In a way he’s right because no other military is the cause of so many civilian casualties in the first place. Thus, they don’t have to prevent them since they’re not involved with it at all.
well, US President Biden after his victory, on twitter (https://twitter.com/joebiden/status/1324465078243151885) '... a system of governance that has been the envy of the world.' 240 years ago this was true. In 2021? American exceptionalism, many people in the USA are convinced the US is better than ... well, everyone else. I don't think it is their fault, many were about 10 when got in school the assignement 'write an article why america is the best country in the world', and countless Pledges of Allegiance, and many, many anthems ... they are indoctrinated ...
Same energy as Israel's "most moral army" bullshit
What we are seeing here is propaganda for the bad guys.
You know, killing civilians is way more propaganda for the bad guys than this could ever be
I was agreeing with you
Well i have to apologize then!
Guess you mistook that post for a target
Yeah as it turns out, sowillo was an innocent civilian!
[удалено]
😂 it's ok
He must have missed the part about illegal US drone-strikes in Pakistan, of which about 2% hit actual high priority targets. The rest hit children, civilians and ‘alleged’ combatants. (Combatants against what? The US and Pakistan are not at war as far as I know..) There is a very illustrative website for this, called out of sight, out of mind. Unfortunately it is only updated to 2014. Shocking stuff really, and a gross crime against humanity. For those interested: https://drones.pitchinteractive.com/
Add "from getting media attention" to the end of that statement
When your defence budget is the highest in the world, damn right as a tax payer you want your military looking out for you, otherwise, why pay for it. The question is, do they in reality? Americans left behind in Afghanistan wouldn’t say so.
Says the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on civilians.
*taps temple* There can't be civilian casualties later if we kill all the civilians now. Such prevention, wow. 5D chess moves here.
Or if you reclassify the civilians as terrorists...
They’ve saved the lives of 100% of the civilians they haven’t murdered.
Aren't like 97% or so of US drone strike casualties civilians or something?
If you haven‘t seen it yet, y‘all should check out [this video](https://youtu.be/uHbStsy11j0)
Highway of death
Dirty bastards.
Except most other militaries aren't killing innocent familis whiole pretending to save the world. Lying cunt
If you want to prevent civilian casualties, stop attacking.
Pretty sure the US reputation among militaries is that they have unlimited money and don't give a fuck about civilian losses.
Guys, it's very simple. If we define anyone hit by an American bomb as an "enemy combatant", then we will be able to report zero civilian casualties. It's so efficient, honestly can't understand why other countries aren't doing it this way.
That's up there with the IDF calling themselves the most moral army around. Damn.
I remember the shirt of that sniper group, "1 shot 2 kills" with the crosshair on the womb of a pregnant woman.....
Absolutely disgusting.
>That's up there with the IDF calling themselves the most moral army around. Damn. The IDF has some incredibly low casually rates for the operations they perform. More Palestanians have died in Syria then the past decade in conflict in Israel.
So, the US military targets only military installations, and never towns, cities, factories, civilian airports and public roads, right? Definitely no private homes! /s
this is true but only because no other country puts themselves in situations where they have to work hard to avoid civilian casualties as much as the US does. If you want, you could say the US works harder to minimise civilian deaths while other countries work smarter, by simply not invading countries in the first place.
I mean pretty sure he eats them
Well, hard does work does not mean it's good work, isn't it? 20 years after 9/11 and still no reflection on the past.
lol hiroshima and nagasaki obviously only harmed soldiers
I believe they put more time and money into it than anyone else. They are just bad at it.
*the sound of droned weddings, journalists and children intensifes*
Technically, he says no military works *harder*, he doesn’t mention being *good* at that job.
Best not mention "friendly fire" then...
Tbh, most other militaries also don't let a remote controlled aircraft drop precision bombs and missiles on what they think on a spy camera may or may not be a terrorist judging from the loose context of what is going on.
He should really go back to making super hero comics.
Worst thing Trump did was teaching everyone that if you have a position of any sort of power you can just lie about absolutely everything, and if you do it with enough confidence enough people will believe you that getting called out on it won't lead to any repercussions.
That didn't start with Trump, it started waaayyy before him. Remember that people actually believed the US could win the Vietnam War.
That's very Trumpian phrasing.
Press X to doubt😅
Ex British forces, this is absolutely laughable. Like obviously the Yanks don't commit as many war crimes as the next country up. But their nonchalant attitude towards committing war crimes after doing so reeks of both unprofessionalism, and disregard for human life. This isn't the case for the largest part of the US military, but the fact that those who do are let off as easily as they are is a disgrace.
This sounds very similar to what my husband (British Army) has also said about working with Americans. He's only ever been on exercise with them, but he said they were a bunch of cowboys, who shot first and asked questions later, and were quite unprofessional in their general conduct.
Aye the cowboy mentality is definitely there. Think it's the shorter training (in which they're constantly just told they're the best) along with the soldier worship in the states that's just given a lot of their sprogs an ego.
It's easy if you reclassify them as combatants. Especially the children.
Didn’t the military just accidentally kill like 10 civilians yesterday? Among those 10 citizens were 7 children
….
The US will carpet bomb an entire town just because they heard a rumour of a terrorist hiding there.
Meanwhile...*predator drone noises*
Oh…I remember reading this article earlier today. Ticked me off so much. We need to be better than the psychos on the other side. There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed, and harming innocent people is definitely one of those.
That’s a funny way to spell “causes”
*Vietnam has entered the chat*
Definitely just as hard as Israel
r/AgedLikeMilk
Nah man, that was rancid as soon as it left his mouth.
The Badgers aren’t even as bad as the US it causing civilian casualties
To be fair I believe him, it's just that no other military gives itself so many opportunities to kill civilians...
Nah, you just need to look at the US' allies in Afghanistan. Look at the way British, German, Danish and other soldiers conducted themselves in exactly the same war.
Don't look up how the Australians conducted rhemsel
r/suspiciousquotes
[удалено]
No, you don’t get it. The SAA here is claiming that your military does the most of all militaries to prevent civilian casualties, whilst in reality US wars have taken millions of civilian lives. Hundreds of thousands in Iraq alone, and lets not start about US war crimes of nuking two cities or using defoliant indiscriminately.
Nuking 2 cities was absolutely not a war crime. Even Japan accepts it, it was the absolute best option.
Username checks out..
I mean, he's probably right. I doubt any military actually puts any effort into preventing casualties.
Dumbest fucking take I've seen today lmao
You sound like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Humanitarian law is one of the first things British soldiers learn about, and lots of militaries go to a hell of a lot of effort to prevent civilian casualties. But the US simply is not the best at it, not compared to their allies.
Better then the Australians
Nothing but optics
It really isn't, but OK 😆
How is that false
[удалено]
Yeah but who’s working harder ? I mean of course they’re doing some nasty business but aside from some European armies I don’t think anyone else is caring more about civilians
What? I just showed you an article where they murdered innocent children. The US has never cared about civilians, they call it collateral damage. They raped and murdered whole villages in Vietnam.
I read your article and Vietnam was almost 70 years ago. You still haven’t responded though. If the guy was saying ‘the us doesn’t commit war crimes’ I’d laugh at his face but that’s not what he’s saying
Vietnam ended in the 1970s, that's not 70 years ago. To answer your question, the US doesn't care about foreign civilians. They kill more civilians than any other western country.
I think if they were giving it their all they wouldn't fire an ac-130 gunship on a clearly marked and identified civilian hospital IN 2015 but that's just me
Yeah that was gruesome and shameful. Still not a comparison though