561
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
561 points (100.0% liked)
World News
48917 readers
1585 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean, yeah, that's what a declaration of war usually entails.
It used to be that non-combatants weren't considered legitimate targets. Ain't progress fun?
tell that to all the civilians in Guantanamo and Gaza.
if the first aggressor doesn't give a fuck about rule of war, it can't complain about them
Or Ukraine's civilians. Or the 500k--2M dead civilians during the war against Iraq. Oh, sorry, those were "collateral"...
Usually citizens are not considered fair targets. They're just targeted all the same.
Iran does not have the military capabilities to fight off Israel, let alone the USA. So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that's the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they're taking losses.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the very important people who decide to keep going or stop are also the least likely to see their life at risk. And in this case, they also happen to not give a flying fuck about civilians lives.
Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it's convenient. President Obama even invented the term 'enemy combatant' so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.
I thought that term first came in vogue during Dubya’s term.
Yeah that was George W Bush.
But sure, same thing right? 🙄
It was under Bush to justify imprisoning civilians. Bush was all for direct war actions.
Obama massively increased bombings and drone bombings to pull out combat troops and would do stuff like double tap weddings. To lower the number of civilian deaths, Obama declared any male over the age of 14 to be, by definition, an enemy combatant.
The person you responded to was correct, though a bit imprecise with their words.
There's no grey area here, this is just false.
He absolutely redefined to justify killing children. Bush didn't do that. It was used, under Bush, to justify torture and jailing of adults.
Obama re-invented it for his purposes. The purpose being to kill children without consequence.
In my mind, that definitional change is significant enough that he owns a lot of that blame.
Fucking goddammit, he redefined the word to justify killing children. Why do you defend that?
EDIT: Removed indirect articles for easier readability, content is the same.
Why would you post such an obvious and easily verifiably false statement.
In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.
If there's a war, don't think you're getting off the hook just because you're a civilian. During war, the old adage "If your not with us, you're against us" becomes weaponized.
Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?
It comes and goes, usually whenever it's useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don't want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it's worth fighting, but sometimes it isn't.
i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)
true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.
stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.
Trump doesn't even have the class to declare.
He also can't. Proclamations of war are made by the legislature. (Congress). If the President sends troops in a supposed emergency they can go without legislative consent for 90 days and must be recalled at that time without the legislature's approval. It's stupid, because 90 days into a conflict we have troops on the ground and an immediate evacuation only hurts us economically and global appearance some worry about. Not to mention the troops lost/injured, casualties left with those attacked and Congress not agreeing to keep them there is an admission that it was wrong, so not paying restitution would hurt international relations as well.
To me it comes to, if he orders troops on the ground, an immediate Congressional impeachment would be needed, and the Senate to remove him, or they will vote in favor of staying in the fight to "save face" and not care how many innocent lives die or are thrown into poverty, starve, are raped, wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and the damages it will cause to the mental health of a whole new generation of our soilders and people of other counties around the world.
You're speaking like you have a functional government.
The funding comes from Congress.... So either they approve it or are forced to approve it which they would have to recognize they no longer exist as an entity if the executive branch can write their checks for them.
So to save face, they would have to approve or impeach. Or completely give up the guise that it is a Republic. Their votes are public record. So the executive branch could make them up, post them and threaten them not to say anything.. but I doubt many of them would go through with that and not vote to impeach unless they are truly pro dictatorship. Some of them think they are pro dictatorship, but when you gather hundreds of people spending their lives/career trying to work their way up in power and someone says they are going to dissolve their positions/power and their chances of rising or having any say plummet.. they would be powerless if they chose to follow... Greed and self preservation would make them not want it.
There you go again.
Not the citizens part
As if the US have ever given a fuck who they blew up...
Americans are always about how we hate the government of a country but not the people, at least this American is and all the Americans I know are, I know it’s not literally universal. To say “I hate the Iranian government but not Iranian people” seems pretty reasonable if you hate the Iranian government but for them to turn around and basically say “well I consider all American entities, including completely powerless civilians free game” is fucked I’m no matter how you look at it. Like wtf more do you want from me? I vote against this, have for decades, I protest against this have been since W was in office, I donate money and energy to war torn countries, I’m absolutely against bombing any country why exactly am I considered fair game?? Fuck anyone who lumps entire countries of people into a single hive-mind that serves its leader, a fraudulent one no less
Well, do yourself what you would expect other people in a rogue state to do. How many cries of "the Russians should overthrow the government!" were there?
Or to bring in a parable: What would you have expected from the average German citizen in 1939?
Never said they did, but that doesn't suddenly make it right now does it.
Since when?
Since 1949
According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.
In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike's reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.
The only thing that's changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says "tut tut, that's a war crime" before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*
* Unless you're from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.
What does that have to do with civilians being legitimate targets in war?
It depends on your definition of "legitimate", I suppose.
My point is that the targeting of civilians is still and always has been common in war. It may now be de jure illegal but it is de facto not policed.
The word legitimate has a pretty specific definition it's not really something that can be reasonably debated.