And then we can largely agree. Can we agree even further though that listing only one combatants crimes can become misleading?

America dropped nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Prior to that they fire bombed virtually every other Japanese city, killing 100 thousand in Tokyo alone.

The fighting on the ground on the islands reads like one long list of horrific war crimes against dehumanized Japanese victims again and again...

I know the illustration shouldn't be necessary, but presenting a single sided selection of choice facts can be extremely misleading, and the video here, like many on Israel today, does exactly the same thing.

Yes. Distrust of one untrustworthy nation doesn't translate into trust of their untrustworthy enemies.

International distress frequencies jammed. That's war crime #1. Firing on lifeboats, war crime #2.
You can convince yourself that their unambiguous identification of it as an American ship before attacking is meaningless, you still can't excuse the multiple war crimes.

I don't trust Israel, not even a little bit....with good reason....and it's not my video.

Btw, you should look into what the word "literally" means, or learn to count, because there were literally 8 words in the first identification message, and it's just one of many. 8 words are all you need to hear them identify the ship.

Specifically jamming American military frequencies and international distress frequencies is a dead giveaway they knew who they were shooting at.....as if the recordings of the identification weren't enough.

Opening fire on lifeboats is another war crime.

Israel is not, and never has been our ally.
Our support of their racist, genocidal regime is baffling in the extreme.

Nobody asked why? I think it's likely because they didn't want anyone recording their other war crimes. Blaming someone else with hopes of bringing us into their war on their side was probably a secondary motive.

And two days ago Israel restarted it's illegal expansion by once again breaking international law and the Geneva convention by renewing efforts to forcefully 'evict' the native Bedouin living in Khan al-Ahmar since before Israel existed and leveling the township.
This sparks the beginning of another genocidal round of expansion and military bluster from Israel, another one we will undoubtedly turn a blind eye to, or perhaps we'll blame the displaced natives like we do the Palestinians.
The UN has previously warned that international humanitarian law requires an occupying power to protect the population of the territory that it occupies, ensure its welfare and wellbeing, as well as the respect for its human rights. Any destruction of property by the occupying power is prohibited, except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, the UN says. The extensive demolition of property is a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and may amount to a war crime, it adds.


https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-45420915

Not going to ban you for your opinion. But saying a veteran should have been kia is pretty goddamn low. You are, as all the dumbass motherfuckers on the interweb who have been calling him a traitor are, referring to the fact that he broke during his POW incarceration.

Here is a brief excerpt of the new techniques that came out right around the time he was captured. Techniques that were so insidious that the military had to REWRITE the code regarding breaking under torture.

"Some were physically tortured, some of them succumbed to the pain and broke, some did not, but there was also a new technique employed, and it took time.

Put into a dark box, not large enough to even stretch out, it is called sensory deprivation, and along with other enhancements, it turns a person insane, malleable, and open to the most ridiculous suggestions. like confessing to the war crime of being ordered to bomb hospitals and orphanages, and doing so.

Some of those who broke under this new kind of interrogation feared to be repatriated, thinking they would be tried for collaboration upon their return. American psychologists and psychiatrists, after interviewing some of these ex-POW’s, determined that, given enough time, anyone, if not everyone, could be broken.

John McCain made them start all over on him a number of times, until his Vietnamese interrogators finally gave up, and threw him into a miserable cell, and not back into his horribly, miserable dark box. His conduct, during his interrogation period, and thereafter, was nothing short of heroic."

Now, if you ever go through enhanced interrogation techniques, please feel free to report back to us how you managed not to break or suffer mental damage from them. Until that time, I find your opinion to be ill informed and lacking weight.

EDIT: Before you go saying I am a fanboy, I didn't care for him as a senator or presidential candidate. He was gullible enough to get sucked into the Keating Five mess and I didn't feel he would be a good president, so I voted democrat in 2008, even though I generally vote republican. I can still recognize him as a war hero and for his service though. The man was not a traitor.

So wait....are you saying we should overlook numerous war crimes and international kidnapping because it was done in the name of fighting an enemy we created that never posed the threat we claimed he did, but was a dictatorial asshole that killed and tortured thousands (making it ok for us to emulate him), and ignore that our actions also killed hundreds of thousands and destabilized the middle east, creating Daesh, starting numerous civil wars, now disastrously effecting all Europe?


Yes, I think you're wrong. Only a hand full of soldiers who were caught by their own stupidity of posting photos of them abusing prisoners were discharged, I don't think any high ranking officers who created and fostered the abusive practices.
https://www.salon.com/2006/03/14/prosecutions_convictions/

It wasn't a few bad apples, it was the "standard desirable practice"....a practice Bush strongly defended and Trump has said he wants to return to, and at least the 1/4 of America that brainlessly loves him agrees.
Personally, I think we should have left any American that participated in this in Iraq, especially the officers in charge...soldiers have a duty to refuse illegal or immoral orders, and ordering torture is absolutely illegal and immoral.

To be fair, I'm sure that examples could be found of media personalities praising Obama/Clinton for similar stuff that they ragged Bush Sr./Jr. for. Best example off the top of my head might be Bush's "terrible war crimes" vs Obama's "brilliant use of drones".

Now, that all comes with a big disclaimer from me. I disliked Obama's expansion of drone bombing, flip-flop in in-office stance vs campaign stance on whistleblower protection, etc. But, I'd still personally evaluate Bush's, uh, miscues as overwhelmingly worse than Obama's. All I'm saying is that there have certainly been talking heads that have been hypocritical in the other direction before.

That being said, this clip takes it to a whole other level. This isn't nuanced, this is blatant. The only rational explanation is that Fox News simply is that biased, shamelessly so (no surprise to most of us). The problem is that Fox News' audience isn't particularly swayed by rational explanations.

I think clearing that "reality distortion field" is something that takes lots of time and lots of indisputable evidence. That's why I basically hope that Trump gets plenty of leash to try (and fail) to fulfill all of his ridiculous promises and self-hype. Nothing like a pointless and decaying border wall to serve as a reminder to be careful about who's cult of personality you get sucked into...

I see the fundamental difference really comes to the target of the "whatabout".

If you are talking about group A and they say "What about group B", then that is just trying to distract/deflect. For example, Trump's comments about the alt-left and alt-right.

If you are talking about Person A and B, and claiming that person B is better, "What about person B's war crimes" is not unrelated. The example of praising Bush over Trump, and Bush's history.

I am not fully convinced that people are confused by the difference, at least the folks that I deal with.

To be honest, I did not expect them to be as open a platform as they were for as long as they were.

Once the platform had enough content that was interesting to enough people out there to make it a noticeable alternative to "old media", it was clear that it's only a matter of time until the corporations buying the ads had to choose between TV and YT, since TV "news" was going down. So they did. Bam, no more business model for news and political/religious commentary on YT. Good luck getting commentary on war crimes in Jemen or apartheid in Israel monetized.

And now that so many content creators get their income through Patreon, it'll be interesting to see how long Patreon remains neutral.

I was under the impression that companies like that paid 'reparations' (restitutions) based on their actions under the Nazis. Is that wrong?
What I meant was they weren't allowed to keep the spoils of the war they lost...as far as I know....and were forced to paid for their complicity, along with the nation as a whole (right? I just assumed Germany paid reparations, but I admit my post war European history is spoty at best)....that doesn't mean eradication, or even stop further success, but it would mean that later successes cannot be attributed to profiting from war crimes. I hope that's right.

Oh my. I had no idea this was a 'parody' of anything...and now I don't know which one is the parody remake and which one is just plain terrible.

If he doesn't want war, why did he commit this war crime?

*quality awfulness

this could not have come at a more perfect time.this week i have been accused of being a:racist,misogynist pig,cis gendered white privileged meat sack,republican tool,trump supporter(seriously?),christian nutter...the list has been long.

all because i had the audacity to point out that:obama is not a progressive,trump has actually attempted to some decent things,the ANTIFA movement is an ill-thought and hypocritical movement,the DNC is a corrupt and failing institution,the left is dead politically in america,the democratic party is one election away from being left in obscurity and that both trump and obama should be tried for war crimes.

i was seriously struggling why people refused to examine or scrutinize their own beloved political figure,but had no issue ridiculing the most inane activities of the person they hate.

i had sincerely asked how a morally justified movement could even fathom that fighting oppression and fascism,with oppression and fascism could ever be considered a solid and positive tactic.

i had people i admired and respected perform mental gymnastics so impressive that they were truly convinced that obama not indicting a single wall street CEO,was not obama bowing to the financial industry,but rather supporting his constituency.

and the presumption of some of these people,basing their opinions on so little,was staggering.even when i attempted to clarify that their assumptions were wrong,and that i was simply asking for the reasons why someone would ignore the mountain of damning evidence.they held on to their assumptions like a small child with a candy bar...

i am pretty thick skinned,and do not take much personally,but many of these people are people i like,admire and respect.that is a bitter pill that is far harder to swallow.

so thanks for that mate,it really put things in perspective for me.time for me to just go do my thing and not get hung up on other peoples biases and prejudices.they can think what they want,i will not let their narrow mindedness dictate how i feel.

that is their deal.

@enoch,

neo-conservatives
I've said in a couple other threads if I was American I'd have(very sadly mind you) voted for Hillary. Not sure, but that should really lay the neo-con thing to bed right there. Doesn't mean I won't agree with them if they notice the sky looks rather blue...

the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012
I don't base or form my morality around American law, so when and how it's deemed lawful or not for an American president to order something doesn't change my opinion one inch on whether the act is good or bad. Sure, it deducts a lot of points when a President breaks laws so that factors in, but if it's legal for a president to shoot babies we're all still gonna call it immoral anyways, right?

you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.
Between act of war, or peace time legal prosecution with proper due process.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.
and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

Sorry, but regarding Bin Laden that's a lie. The US state department held a trial and convicted Bin Laden already back in the 90s. The Taliban refused to extradite him then, and demanded they be shown evidence. They were shown the evidence and declared that they saw nothing unIslamic in his actions. Clinton spent his entire presidency back and forth with them, even getting a unanimous order from the UN security council demanding Bin Laden's extradition.

Smugly claiming that the US refused to provide any evidence to the Taliban because they were being bullies is ignoring reality. after spending several years getting jerked around by the Taliban claiming each new act of war launched from their territory wasn't their fault nor bin Laden's fault left a less patient president after 9/11...

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.
Can't say I'm very familiar with Hannity because I avoid Fox news at all costs.
Did he praise the killings afterwards and declare the shooter a hero like Anwar?
Did he council before hand in his books that killing those people was moral or just or religiously blessed like Anwar did?
Did he personally meet with and council/mentor the shooter before hand at some point as well, like Anwar did?

I have to ask just so we really are comparing apples to apples and all. If the answers are yes(and from Fox I suppose I can't completely rule that out just out of hand), then yeah, he's as guilty as Anwar.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

If he goes to Yemen we just laugh at our good fortune that he decided to kill himself for us.

To your point, if he finds a similar independent state to continue promoting and coordinating attacks as part of an effective terrorist unit killing new civilians every week then yes, bombs away.

Now if either he or Anwar remained in the US you arrest them and follow all due process. Oh, and to again shake the neo-con cloud you don't get to torture them by calling it enhanced interrogation, it's still a war crime and you should lock yourself up in a cell next door.

My whole thing is that setting up a state within a state and waging war shouldn't just be a get out of jail free card under international law. Either the 'host' state is responsible for the actions or it is not. If responsible, then like in Afghanistan it initiated the war by launching the first attacks. If not responsible, then it's declared the state within a state to be sovereign, and other states should be able to launch a war against the parasitic state, as has been happening with Obama's drones in tribal Pakistan.

War crime laws are an interesting concept. They're ignored when a real war is fought, and pretty much exclusively applied to the losing side alone afterwards. They serve as a tool to demonize and justify military action after the dust has settled, allowing the victors to say that they had just cause in committing all of their own atrocities. I'd be curious (and likely horrified) to see how far the US would go if it actually had to fight a war it had a chance of losing.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.