Yeah, but US drone strikes aren't so intense on one small area or group of people
What do you mean? There's a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I'm a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.
We we're much worse.
It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide
I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.
If anything it's not comparable because what we did was worse.
Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.
It's 100% comparable. We're talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That's exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.
It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it's plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it's 100. But it's the same thing
It's either okay to kill civilians or it's not.
Plus one two three...?! I'd laugh if I didn't know we were talking about innocent lives lost, and far more than +3. Or are you seriously going to tell me that 28k civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan didn't happen. And USA was there for 6 years. IRAQ am too afraid to look up.
I'm not omniscient I don't know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I'm aware of
And for others it was decided it was within rules of engagement and washed their hands. Here's a video from when USA killed those two Reuters reporters. Just skip to 17:05 and see the the casualty report from ground troops. Killed 11 civilians, one small child (in reality there were two)... for what? But this case was thrown out as "they acted within rules of engagement". It's just a shit excuse so no one is to be blamed when innocent people die and this video here shows just how frivolously they shot. One of the soldiers drove over a dead body and started laughing. Other guy said "well it's their problem bringing child to a combat" when it's them who engaged random group of people on the street.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Yes it's a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we're fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force
This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions
Argument is that I am not convinced what Israel is doing is genocide and it's completely comparable to what USA and other countries did when it was also not called genocide. Collateral casualties are sad, but no war is without them. Whether war is bad or not is not ever arguable, but people can't agree on Coke vs. Pepsi, let alone religion or other subjects so there will always be wars.
All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.
How can you bend definition of genocide so much as to excuse yourself but blame Israel at the same time. Here's a refresher for you.
Sounds like the equivalent of US drone strikes.
Yeah, but US drone strikes aren't so intense on one small area or group of people
What do you mean? There's a whole generation of Yemeni children afraid of Sunny days because those are the days that people die. I'm a place that gets 300+ days of sunshine a year.
We we're much worse.
It’s not a genocide. Not defending what we’ve done, but I don’t think it’s fair to compare to genocide
I would fully disagree. We targeted civilians, not in war zones at functions like weddings, funerals and other explicitly civilian gatherings. We (the US) had the intent to kill civilians, and our tolerances for civilian casualties were an order of magnitude larger than what the IDF is using.
If anything it's not comparable because what we did was worse.
Thank you for knowing history and at least trying to educate others from it. People here are so willing to bend definitions and ignore events that were far worse just so it can fit their narrative.
It's 100% comparable. We're talking about collateral budgets for strikes. That's exactly what happened in both of these scenarios.
It just so happens they have different budgets, but they both had allowances for allowing innocent people to be killed alongside potential targets. On one hand it's plus one two three maybe even five allowable collateral on a target. On the other hand it's 100. But it's the same thing
It's either okay to kill civilians or it's not.
Plus one two three...?! I'd laugh if I didn't know we were talking about innocent lives lost, and far more than +3. Or are you seriously going to tell me that 28k civilian casualties per year in Afghanistan didn't happen. And USA was there for 6 years. IRAQ am too afraid to look up.
I'm not omniscient I don't know everything that happened. But I do know the published ROE included a collateral budget for different strikes of one to two. 3 to 5 with extra approval for at least one theater of operation that I'm aware of
And for others it was decided it was within rules of engagement and washed their hands. Here's a video from when USA killed those two Reuters reporters. Just skip to 17:05 and see the the casualty report from ground troops. Killed 11 civilians, one small child (in reality there were two)... for what? But this case was thrown out as "they acted within rules of engagement". It's just a shit excuse so no one is to be blamed when innocent people die and this video here shows just how frivolously they shot. One of the soldiers drove over a dead body and started laughing. Other guy said "well it's their problem bringing child to a combat" when it's them who engaged random group of people on the street.
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Yes it's a terrible thing. Collateral damage should not be the cost of war. Especially when we're fighting an asymmetric war. The occupying force should have stricter rules of engagement, no collateral allowed. They are after all the dominant occupying force
This entire discussion started when somebody compared US rules of engagement towards the current Israeli rules of engagement. Is the genocide terrible Yes absolutely. It is comparable however, to previous US military engagements. This is not to absolve the guilt of the current actions, but to castigate the previous actions
Argument is that I am not convinced what Israel is doing is genocide and it's completely comparable to what USA and other countries did when it was also not called genocide. Collateral casualties are sad, but no war is without them. Whether war is bad or not is not ever arguable, but people can't agree on Coke vs. Pepsi, let alone religion or other subjects so there will always be wars.
https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
All the starving people in Yemen would disagree with the not genocide comment. Like in Palestine, a religious nationalist is committing atrocities with full US support.
How can you bend definition of genocide so much as to excuse yourself but blame Israel at the same time. Here's a refresher for you.
Ok, here’s a refresher for you