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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It used to be that non-combatants weren’t considered legitimate targets. Ain’t progress fun?
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.
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.
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.
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.
“War is terrible”
Wow, such a great take. You should be in charge. Any more deep insights?
Lol. You’re following me around now to insult me? And you called me a neckbeard…