Rendered at 08:48:39 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
blitzar 18 hours ago [-]
"Now" is doing a metric ton of heavy lifting in that headline.
boothby 18 hours ago [-]
There are degrees to these things. A nation's leader repeatedly and explicitly declaring intent to commit genocide is makes that "lift" an extremely light one.
newsclues 18 hours ago [-]
Remember when America firebombed civilians during World War Two?
pjc50 18 hours ago [-]
That was, sadly, very much an "everybody does this" thing, from Guernica to Chongqing to Coventry.
But yes, there are two possible lessons from those horrors:
- never again must this happen to anyone: the construction of international peace frameworks, the ICC, and human rights law
- what is currently happening, which is very different
JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago [-]
Wasn’t regret for and fear of the scale of that damage partly why we supported the Geneva Convention?
acqq 18 hours ago [-]
Ever heard about Laos?
"Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."
"The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."
"Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"
JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago [-]
I’m not remotely claiming we didn’t do war crimes afterwards. Just that the firebombing, if I recall correctly, was explicitly cited as a reason why we needed rules going forward.
blitzar 18 hours ago [-]
Unfortunately that knowledge seems to have been lost with the passage of time.
jst1fthsdys 15 hours ago [-]
Quick question, who were the aggressors in that war? What had they done previously that might have warranted it?
hawkice 15 hours ago [-]
The aggressors not being the targets of the firebombing is central to the concerns here. They weren't military targets (largely).
jst1fthsdys 15 hours ago [-]
It was total war though, and they were the aggressors who had slaughtered millions of civilians previously. The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.
Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.
Tadpole9181 6 hours ago [-]
My brother in Christ, why do you think the Geneva conventions were made!?
blitzar 18 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
wongarsu 18 hours ago [-]
No, the fire bombing of Japan did far more damage than the nuclear bombs. What made early nuclear bombs scary is that instead of needing hundreds of bombers you now only needed one for the same amount of damage
If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing.
Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?
wak90 16 hours ago [-]
Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure
OutOfHere 15 hours ago [-]
Huh. It is not entirely in Iran's territorial water. It is partially in Oman's water. Iran is attempting to control what does not belong to it.
Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]
Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed.
> “better than carpet bombing”
The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.
> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”
Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.
OutOfHere 12 hours ago [-]
Customary law is not formal law. Trump flies above the bedrock.
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.
josefritzishere 18 hours ago [-]
The US certainly has a mixed track record here. But the culture of lawlessness in this administration is hard to overstate. Every crime committed by this regime is followed by a "what about" argument from a pundit, citing an example where someone in time, committed a vaguely similar offense. But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often. This is historically corrupt and criminal; everything else is disingenuous false equivalency.
avaer 18 hours ago [-]
For anyone who hasn't, I recommend reading up on Watergate and watching the resignation speech.
It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.
rtkwe 18 hours ago [-]
Well initially Nixon was following a similar playbook to what you see Trump et al pull off successfully today. He only resigned when it became clear the he had lost too many votes in the Senate and would lose the impeachment vote. That took a few months from when the story initially broke.
soraminazuki 16 hours ago [-]
> But no regime in US history did so many crimes so often.
Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.
18 hours ago [-]
spiderfarmer 18 hours ago [-]
This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.
But people in the USA should realise this:
An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.
Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.
At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.
That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.
Buckle up.
dang 9 hours ago [-]
> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises
Lol - actually because at most no one in HN leadership realised the thread even existed.
Here's a tip for improved accuracy on HN speculation: if your speculation implicitly assumes moderator omniscience, it's probably wrong.
We don't moderate HN based on what reflects badly or goodly on $country or $people. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, i.e. remains interesting and hovers semi-stably above internet median.
paleotrope 18 hours ago [-]
"An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA."
Same as it always was.
17 hours ago [-]
orwin 17 hours ago [-]
I guarantee you it isn't the same. Even anti-atlantists here were more 'we should imitate them' than 'we should fight against their culture'. Nowadays even my very Catholic, very right wing, very pro-Bush/Irak war family is quite cross with the US.
exolymph 13 hours ago [-]
> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.
flags are user-driven
nh23423fefe 11 hours ago [-]
No you dont get it. A conspiracy is afoot.
cmxch 15 hours ago [-]
Rome (US) will always have its critics.
It’s our job to make sure they don’t have any power.
dana-s 18 hours ago [-]
You were correct, it got flagged. Personally I held the belief that people shat too much on the USA, then the current regime started and I feel a fool.
Markoff 18 hours ago [-]
Now? There is reason why United States is not a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
It's their policy for decades. There is no bigger threat for world peace than US (and maybe Israel).
spiderfarmer 18 hours ago [-]
Not maybe. Israel is the whole reason the USA is losing its mind (and its war) in Iran right now.
Markoff 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think Israel was reason for Iraq invasion, Serbia bombing or kidnapping Venezuelan president and many other US attacks on other countries.
metalman 9 hours ago [-]
judaeo christian genocide cults like zionisim are behind all of the worst atrocities in this century, there "policy" is unspeakable deranged insanity, and there actions, bit by bit, serve as the rope that hangs them, and it might sound a bit strange to hear them rant,here,with the nonsensical
rationalisations, but they know no shame
throw469944 6 hours ago [-]
You know what we don’t see in here? Judaeo Christians or Zionists demonizing Muslims.
All the hatred is flowing in one direction, and that tells you all you need to know about the difference between the two sides.
dataflow 17 hours ago [-]
Why in the world is this flagged?
nickvec 16 hours ago [-]
Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
dataflow 11 hours ago [-]
This being evidence of an interesting new phenomenon is literally the entire premise of the blog post though. And it sure as hell didn't look like it was covered on the main news headlines; I know I only heard about it because of HN. The author is pretty clearly claiming this is a new phenomenon literally in the title itself!
krapp 9 hours ago [-]
It's new, but is it "interesting?" Does it "satisfy intellectual curiosity?"
Many people here will consider this categorically off topic and flag accordingly because politics doesn't satisfy theirs. Even if it's a good article, and even if the discussion is on-topic and civil.
dataflow 7 hours ago [-]
What is "intellectual curiosity" that doesn't include curiosity about whether, when, and how often the world superpower commits a war crime? For reference just the other day we had [1] on the front page. Was knowing the consumer price index for the month really all that much more satisfying of "intellectual curiosity" than this?
>What is "intellectual curiosity" that doesn't include curiosity about whether, when, and how often the world superpower commits a war crime?
It means "anything good hackers find interesting" and anything that "sparks curious conversation."
What does that mean? I don't exactly know. Certainly nothing objective. In practice it means whatever the people flagging the thread decide it does.
tristanj 18 hours ago [-]
[dead]
mugiseyebrows 18 hours ago [-]
It's called war crime only if you lost
ryandvm 17 hours ago [-]
“It says here in this history book that luckily, the good guys have won every single time. What are the odds?” -Norm MacDonald
toxicunderGroov 16 hours ago [-]
And it's only called pedophilia if convicted
18 hours ago [-]
misano 17 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
jst1fthsdys 15 hours ago [-]
> The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime
What about the human rights abuses by the democratic regime of ISUS? Do we deserve some war crimes too?
misano 14 hours ago [-]
It's like, oh, we shouldn't do anything against Hitler because our army might commit war crimes. The reason for the opponents of war is war crimes? Can we have a war without committing crimes? If it's not possible, then the question boils down to whether it's worth it? And you have to throw the moral abacus at whether war, with its possibilities, is morally preferable or the tragedies that happen without it. The Islamic Republic regime is the most evil government the world has ever seen.
But yes, there are two possible lessons from those horrors:
- never again must this happen to anyone: the construction of international peace frameworks, the ICC, and human rights law
- what is currently happening, which is very different
"Between December of 1964 and March of 1973, the US launched more than 270 million cluster bombs on Laos during Operation Barrel Roll. This number is equivalent to dropping a full plane cargo load every 8 minutes, 24 hours a day, for 9 years. Laos is thus the most heavily bombed country in the world."
"The legacy of this once secret war continues today. More than 80,000,000 undetonated bombs are strewn across the country threatening the lives of its people."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/laos-the-most-heavily-bo...
"Since the end of the operation in 1973, over 20,000 people have died or been injured by these remaining bombs. At any moment, a farmer may strike one while plowing or a child may find one while playing. (...) Estimates suggest that as many as 100 civilians fall victim every year"
Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_raids_on_Japan#Firebombing...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo
Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?
Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_strait
> “better than carpet bombing”
The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.
> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”
Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.
It represents the kind of presidential conduct that a few decades ago was considered so abhorrent that the president should immediately resign over it.
Native Americans would beg to differ, as would formerly enslaved people. Both historical injustices and the ongoing suffering of people abroad unfortunately feel distant to many, so the cruelty becomes abstract, and to some, unreal.
But people in the USA should realise this:
An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA.
Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classmates see no difference between China, Russia, USA or Israel. None of these countries seem particularly trustworthy to them.
At the "Model United Nations" my oldest, who had to represent the United States realistically was surprised to learn just how immensely hypocritical, self-serving, arrogant and sometimes just plain evil the viewpoints of the USA are. And have been, for his entire life now.
That's the generation that has to do business with the USA in 10-20 years time.
Buckle up.
Lol - actually because at most no one in HN leadership realised the thread even existed.
Here's a tip for improved accuracy on HN speculation: if your speculation implicitly assumes moderator omniscience, it's probably wrong.
We don't moderate HN based on what reflects badly or goodly on $country or $people. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, i.e. remains interesting and hovers semi-stably above internet median.
Same as it always was.
flags are user-driven
It’s our job to make sure they don’t have any power.
It's their policy for decades. There is no bigger threat for world peace than US (and maybe Israel).
All the hatred is flowing in one direction, and that tells you all you need to know about the difference between the two sides.
“Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”
Many people here will consider this categorically off topic and flag accordingly because politics doesn't satisfy theirs. Even if it's a good article, and even if the discussion is on-topic and civil.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
It means "anything good hackers find interesting" and anything that "sparks curious conversation."
What does that mean? I don't exactly know. Certainly nothing objective. In practice it means whatever the people flagging the thread decide it does.
What about the human rights abuses by the democratic regime of ISUS? Do we deserve some war crimes too?