561
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by RandAlThor@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

Archive article: https://archive.ph/shFsv

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Zorque@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago

It used to be that non-combatants weren't considered legitimate targets. Ain't progress fun?

[-] Anomalocaris@lemm.ee 50 points 1 month ago

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

[-] matlag@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] Uranus_Hz@lemm.ee 6 points 1 month ago

I thought that term first came in vogue during Dubya’s term.

[-] prole 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that was George W Bush.

But sure, same thing right? 🙄

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] prole 1 points 1 month ago

President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’

There's no grey area here, this is just false.

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] conicalscientist@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Why would you post such an obvious and easily verifiably false statement.

[-] BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.world 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 month ago

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.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

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.

this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2025
561 points (100.0% liked)

World News

48891 readers
1565 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS