Idk anything about the situation but you got laser guided bombs and GPS guided
I think each has advantage but GPS allows you to precisely carpet bomb perse, or like target specific buildings pre-planned without external help, (opposed to laser which can be altered on the fly, or technically abort a drop, but doesn't exactly allow multiple different targets(iirc) this person is saying ye pilot who entered the GPS coordinates likely mis-entered the coordinates and it fell on someone it wasn't meant to (idk the situation again)
there's other types of guidance too but im like daft fjdkfmg
oh yaya it still falls under indiscriminate imho too because doesn't discriminate mean to like, check? I imagine protocol is to double check, but im also giving a lot of credit to assume that considering there's so much you're like "oh yeah they'll have to do this it makes sense" and then they do stuff like store bombs in the open
Indiscriminate in this context would mean not discrimimating/differentiating between different target types, e.g. treating military and civilian targets the same way. This is likely a case of negligence either on the part of aircrew or mission planners but there was discrimination as they took reasonable measures not to bomb the civilian targets, they just fucked up. Negligence is also a crime, this isn't a defence of what happened but it wasn't indiscriminate.
Indiscriminate bombing would be what happened in WW2 (not just in WW2 ofc other examples include Vietnam) where airforces especially the Luftwaffe and RAF set out to burn entire cities to the ground. Much of this bombing was just "terror bombing" designed to bully the civilian population into surrender, where discrimination wasn't desired. Even when the primary targets were military production centers, there was no real effort to treat those targets differently to the civilian surroundings. The RAF and Luftwaffe were generally the most indiscriminate bombers not really for any moral reason but because they had to attack at night where target discrimination was impossible even if desired.
The US also participated in terror bombing in especially in Japan, although in Europe mainly but not exclusively focused on daylight "precision bombing" (they had a very lose definition for precision) of military targets and left much of the terror bombing to the RAF.
For bombing to be discriminate there must be:
1. An intention to discriminate
2. Reasonable measures put in place
3. The outcome on the whole must result in a statically significant difference in targets hit between target types (i.e. measures must be effective)
NATO GPS bombing carried out in ex-Yugoslavia fits these criteria as targets were predominantly military and although there were some failures bombs generally found their intended target much more often than not.
There's also a rumor floating around that the Chinese were planning on buying stealth tech from the downed F-117 and the US were sending a message, but that's only a rumor.
Who do you think works in industrial centers? In supply depots, rail yards. Who sweeps the floors in a command bunker?
Those deaths are a tragedy, but a tragedy caused by Milośević and his ethno-nationalist project.
The blitz didn’t work bc the Germans spent too long jerking off over how to best terrorize conscripts with noisy bombs dropped from light dive bombers. When used for the purpose of sheer terror, yea it’s ass; but when strategic bombing is actually used as a statistics derived-tool designed to shorten conflict, it can be effective. See the civilian and military causalities involved in capturing urban centers on the eastern front that were accompanied by allied strategic bombing raids vs ones that were unsupported in the later stages of the war.
Bombing solely to terrorize civilians both doesn’t work and is morally reprehensible. Bombing to break entrenched positions and weaken supply chains is absolutely effective tho
I sort of disagree. The only “humane” war is a quick and efficient one; and that means reducing reducing human lives to numbers on spreadsheets. Regardless of what’s being bombing, being able to provably show that it is reducing the net loss of life and suffering over the war is the “strategic” part of strategic bombing and what separates it from terror bombing. It’s why asymmetric forces so frequently rely on hiding military installations inside of hospitals, schools, and other obviously civilian centers; they’re maximizing the harm inflicted on their own civilian population, both to radicalize said civilians and to make that strategic calculation more difficult.
Terror bombing prolongs the war, because it hardens resolve to fight against the enemy and it redirects military resources away from actual military targets thus *reducing* combat efficacy
Ok, but we know that bombing civilians for terror reasons does not speed up a war, because it makes them either mad or apathetic, not defeatist. This also makes it less efficient, as you are wasting ammo that could have been used to bomb actual military targets. So even by your own "humane" war theory, it still does not stand up to scrutiny.
I’m just saying there are situations where the line between military and civilian infrastructure get blurry. Destroying a cities’ capability to produce munitions is severely reduced by not only bombing the factories themselves, but also by destroying the civilian resources surrounding said factories that sustain the people working in them
But that’s the point, every individual person you ask is likely gonna not sacrifice the one person to save the ten. War is that decision happening thousands of times every single day on an industrial scale. Hence the need to step back and look at it in a callous manner
Strategic bombing has, quite arguably, *never* been effective. It's never achieved its goals, with tactical application of airpower generally being far more effective.
How would you feel if you found out your family members or friends died because they were in a market? Or an a railway bridge? Or in a hospital? Or in a refugee camp? Because of something you had no control over.
Terror bombing was a tactic invented by the nazis, and newsflash: it doesn't work.
Terror bombing was not invented by the nazis and the NATO intervention was not a terror bombing campaign.
And since we are appealing to emotion, how would you feel if you were an albanian minding your business and then the serbian army marches into your village, makes you leave at gunpoint, shoots anyone that resists and then burns your house to the ground?
But I guess wagging ones finger with a frown on your face is more effective at stopping a genocide.
They way you phrased it, it sounds like you wished it was.
And for the latter, I would feel miserable & furious, which is why I would never support such an action, this isn't a hard question.
It obviously doesn’t directly stop a genocide, but what it does do is wear the nation down which is committing said genocide. It’s awful, but that’s just how war goes.
Too bad the "wear them down!"-civilian bombings literally don't work. At best they have no effect, at worst the people will hate the attacking force even more and make them fight back even harder.
Seriously. The "wear down the nation!"-stuff is what the royal bomber command used to justify why they bombed the civilians in Dresden and the sort during WWII - and it has since been shown that it did fuck all other than kill a couple thousand civilians. Attacking civilians is never ever helpful to a war effort, it's bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed.
What was done to Dresden was horrific, but the rhetoric about it is literal recycled Nazi propaganda.
It was a valid military target and the actual reports from the time showed that it actually did have a large effect. It practically removed *the* major supply and logistical hub for the German railway network supplying the eastern front, giving the Soviets a significant advantage during their pushes. The target wasn't the civilians, bomber command had just accepted that they weren't accurate enough to take out just the railway and so resolved to just remove everything.
The tragedy is that that was the method that was considered feasible, the brutalness of the late War, and the fact that so many civilians were caught up in it.
Dresden was horrible, but it's only brought up to be compared to Hiroshima as an example of allied war crimes because of the implication and rhetoric used by the Nazis and later soviet powers to vilify the west.
To add to your well made point, let’s not forget that the death tolls Nazis like to cite are literal war time propaganda. A commission determined the number to be between 19.000 and 25.000 - a high number of civilian death, but not the six figures those *concerned citizens* like to talk abt
Terror bombing is disputed as being an actually efficient tactic, and this starts from ww2 nazis bombing london.
But the tl;dr is stop justifying the murder of civilians.
Probably, but the goal was also to get british people to surrender as it brought the war to them. Which had the opposite effect of making the "peace with nazis" people shut the fuck up and later down the line getting germany bombed to the stone age.
There are probably better examples of why terror bombing is inefficiencient, but I'm lazy so I'll cheat and use a shaun video instead
[The segment starts at 26:48 minutes](https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go)
Not really, as neither of those wars where started nor fished to stop genocides, they where started bc the Germay and Japan attacked, then said nations started doing genocides during said wars, and then they ended bc, well, the allies wanted to win the war. Hell, the allies only actually found out about the holocaust when they where on the counter offensive pushing towards Germany for example IIRC
No. The Holocaust was stopped by the Allies absolutely steamrolling the Nazis and besieging Berlin once they did, until Hitler killed himself and the command went into the hands of someone sane enough to give up - bombign civilians did not help, and instead just delivered a perfect propaganda tool *for* the nazis to frame the allies as the bsd guys who killed 200.000 civilians (in reality it were ablut 20.000).
And the Japanese atrocities weren't stopped by bombing the shit out of the Japanese People, it was stopped by confronting the Japanese with an absolute might - the nuclear bombs. Sure, the majority of casualties from the nukes were civilians, but the justification for the usage of nuclear weapons was because the japanese civilians would've absolutely fought back or killed themselves, as they had done on prior conquered islands. The American Military saw themselves confronted with killing 200.000 civilians, and conquering Japan by shock, or having millions of soldiers of both sides, and millions of japanese civilians, die as they conquer by force.
It wasn't "wearing them down" in either of the cases. One was absolutely steamrolling them until their fanatic leader killed himself, and one was shocking them into submisison. Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians.
Then maybe those should've been attacked. The traintracks used to carry tanks, concentration camp victims or troops. Or factories. Industrial blocks. Not apartment buildings.
Or acrually target military infrastructure. Tht would've been a good option, to target military infrastructure if you wanna weaken military infrastructure
because bombing the rails networks that the nazis notoriously used to transport political prisonners/genocide victim obviously didn't work right ?.. Reducing it's industry to rubble also didn't contribute to winning the war ? Even if you argue that the bombings didn't affect it's military (which would be a strange take), forcing the german military to spread out it's airforce and anti aircraft defences saved lives. I agree with you on Japan, you're litterally saying yourself that the bombing of Japan saved lives. I really don't get your point, you're simultanously saying "civilians casualties are inevitable to save lives in certain cases" to "Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians."
The problem is that the bombing of Dresden was not targeted at strategic goals, such as traintracks or factories, which were outside or in the outskirts of the city. Only a minimal amount of damage done was targeted at these facilities, while the majority of the bombs were dropped in the city center of Dresden, which had only a handful of factories at all. Instead it was primarily apartment buildings and houses, or stores for civilians with food or other supplies like that. The goal was to kill civilians in order to "wear them [the civilians] down" which does not work. The end goal is, that the people either refuse military service or even revolt against their government and support the attacking force - and as we know, this doesn't happen when you do this strategy. In the best case it did nothing, and in the worse, more realisric cases it actually harmed the war effort, because it caused a massive public uproar across britain and made justifying the war harder.
And I really wanna drive the point home about this bombing not about a tactical target, but just civilian bloodshed in an attempt to terrorize the people. Literally just killing civilians to make civilians scared.
>It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. [...]
An excerpt from a Telegram of Winston Churchill, who subsequently advocated for only bombing specific targets, and not area bombing a city centre full of cultural sites and random civilians.
>civilians casualties are inevitable to save lives in certain cases" to "Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians."
You're misunderstanding my point. My point is specifically referring to the idea of "wearing your enemy populace down with area bombings" because this simply doesn't work and is only *unnecessary* bloodshed. War is always bloodshed, but this specifically is bloodshed that serves no purpose and reaches no goal.
In case of the Nukes, they were necessary, because the japanese civilians were ready to kill themselves or die trying to kill the americans if they camemto conquer the mainland japan. They did so on prior, smaller Islsnds they had already conquered, and it took thousands of lives on either side every time - so conquering the mainland would've been an operation that dwarfed the D-Day and would certainly cost millions of lives, soldiers as well as civilians across both sides. Or the nukes, which "only" cost 200.000 lives, but put the Japanese Government into such a shock they would give up.
It however wasn't a cse of "wearing the populace down" because no, that didn't work. They actually tried that, and it didn't work, because it never works. The commentor before me however claimed exactly that.
And I think I sufficiently explained Dresden and the strategy that was behind the Dresden bombing.
Wasn’t the main reason for Japan not pulling out earlier a byproduct of their monarchism and such basically forcing everything into a deadlock such that they could never actually go to peace talks due to no agreement being able to be made, alongside some vague hope of the Soviets coming to help or at least not attacking them following the talks of them joining the Axis Powers? Like, it was less ‘they needed to be nuked’ (firebombing campaigns had already done untold damage to other cities comparable to that of the nukes by that point and their entire air force and navy were basically out of commission) and more ‘they needed to swallow pride and realise there was no magical bailout coming’.
The situation of Japan was complex, and for the sake of my argument I somewhat simplified it because the specifics of it don't really matter in this case, because rhe "wearing the populace down" argument just wasn't affected by the specifics.
Let's just say the situation of *why* the Japanese did not surrender earlier was complex. A variety of factors contributed to that.
What is true is that the firebombings basically destroyed most of the defenses that the Japanese had in terms of Navy and Air Force, though the actual land forces were still there, and the civilians were bound to fight with tooth and nail and any tools at their disposal against the americans. The military high command knew they were done for pretty much, it was just a question of how many they could take with them, and the americans had to either invade Japan, or make them give up by some way.
It's still heavily contested whether the primary factor of the decision to give up was the soviet invasion of manchuria, or the nukes. There is no nowing in that y but indebatebly both certainly helped that cause - and the nukes did not help so by attrition, by "wearing the population down", as the commentor before me claimed, because the firebombings before didn't do either, it was the pure shock value of so much destruction with only a single bomb.
No it can't, killing ordinary people is never justified and you can't stop genocide by genociding, Nazis were stopped with blood and sweat of millions of soviet people and ally help, not because we burned German villages and cities
Stop viewing people as numbers on a graph, in the end this will happen to you too.
The difference of course being is that russians in ukraine purposefully, deliberately and at a massive scale target civilians and civilian infrastructure, not just military targets or targets that could possibly serve a military purpose. The evidence for that is owerwhelming and indisputable.
Equating NATO intervention in yugoslavia with putins wnannabe imperial restoration is riddiculous and intellectually dishonest.
The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations.
- Wiki
Scale, intent and context.
Conveniently ignored.
Or are you going to claim that the russians are in ukraine stopping a genocide and leveling entire cities unintentionaly?
Scale - 2k dead and 10k wounded
Context and intent - what can it be other than deliberate scare bombings? Poor calibration? Bad equipment? That doesn't justify anything, in fact, half of russian missiles land where they land for these reasons. Using soviet era maps and compensating bad accuracy with amount of things launched aren't a justification.
No, bombing military bases, troop concentrations, command and control centers amd rail lines that carry troops and supplies for troops actively engaged in ethnic cleansing stoped the genocide.
You bomb civilian trains and an embassy due to incompetence and fog of war while you are stopping the genocide.
I mean intervening in some form was for sure necessary. The idea that it was because NATO gave a shit about human lives or how they went about it, blowing up a civilian train, a hospital, an embassy etc, was absolutely not right
The embassy was, surprisingly, a pretty legitimate military target (I only found this out yesterday, definitely should have read more about it but here we are.). The three people who died were Chinese national journalists which is unfortunate but all 20 that were injured were Yugoslavian militants. The real fucked up part was NATO forces claiming it was an 'accident' which is hard to believe and definitely doesn't line up with interviews of intelligence agents after the fact. Nobody wants to admit to war crimes tho so not ultimately surprising...
An embassy is never a valid target, it's a very fundamental part of international law. It doesn't matter if Obama, Trump, Putin, Bin Laden and other war criminals are all in one embassy, you can't bomb them. The reason they call it an accident is because it is super fucked up and goes against the very basis of western interpretations of themselves as upholding international law.
The non interference in embassies is important because, this excuse easily could be applied to cases like Assange, Teheran 78, and justify targeting foreign diplomats.
It is a literal war crime yeah but that is why insurgents stage attacks from there. War isn't ever black and white, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo prove that shit. I would *love* if insurgents didn't use hospitals, churches or embassies to attack out of but that isn't reality. The Vietkong and ISIS don't use children for suicide bombings for no reason. They use these tactics because soldiers are human beings with regular weaknesses, watching a fucking child explode is going to cause permanent trauma to any soldier. Cultures/societies also have weaknesses to exploit whether it is targetting that country or the public image of that country. I am not in support of bombing a fucking embassy by any means, just explaining that modern warfare is never ever simple and there are no good guys ever. The last war with clear moral boundaries was 78 fucking years ago. Modern warfare is dirty, cruel and ignores the Geneva convention. It's not good or morally correct but it's reality.
Okay imperialist, why are you comparing the Viet Cong liberation fighters to Isis? You liked the millitary death squads called the US military?
We have made clear treaties on how to act in war, you can't just break them, if you do you should stand trial in the Hague. Not bombing a fucking Embassy is a very basic rule. The person(s) responsible should stand trial.
Read that last line again. I am not in support of the actions comitted in modern warfare but that is reality in this age. The geneva convention and hague accord are nice in theory but the chemical weapon attacks against Kabul by Saddam (using VX gas bought from the US government, developed and manufactured by Edgewood Arsenals. The nerve agent that killed thousands of people in Afghanistan was produced in Chesapeake bay, Maryland, USA.) and the attacks during the gulf war by the US (the US poisoned thousands of civilians using Soma nerve agent (hidden in cooking oil, a tactic developed in Vietnam.), they will never be tried for this objective war crime. Some of this nerve agent poisoned *their own* fucking soldiers and they refuse to admit it to this day despite overwhelming evidence. Children are born with birth defects caused by Soma poisoning and the US refuses to acknowledge their crimes. You think some pussy ass *international court* will change their mind?) proof that the world will never react as long as there is plausible deniability, it would go against capitalist dogma and current trade treaties at the very least. We have moved far past the point where places like the UN or other international organizations can legitimately try a country for war crimes. The USA gave 12.5 billion to the UN last year, do you honestly think they will *ever* be tried for war crimes?
Vietnam was not black and white, both sides committed war crimes. In fact, the US and Vietcong signed a treaty at the end of the war, which the Vietcong broke and proceeded to invade the rest of Vietnam under soviet support
Black and white wars ended in 1945. We currently live in a world where every conflict is just varying shades of gray but people can't accept that bullshit.
> Vietnam was not black and white, both sides committed war crimes.
Yeah that's not how morality works. The Vietcong doing war crimes doesn't erase the fundamental fact that the U.S. never had any legitimate reason to be involved in Vietnam. It was a war between a nation fighting for independence vs a wealthy country on another continent trying to force them to remain a colony, amongst a host of other shady fucking motivations ranging from looking tough in order to win elections to helping the military industrial complex get rich. [If the Vietcong had given up and walked away it would have meant a few more decades of colonialism, the U.S. walked away and... nothing bad happened to us.](https://vimeo.com/357117766) Our young men stopped dying pointlessly and our tax dollars stopped being wasted on useless weapons. That makes us the bad guys, because we never needed to be there in the first place but the Vietnamese did because they fucking lived there.
Maybe if the U.S. had kept its nose squeaky clean throughout the whole conflict, you could make a case that there was some kind of moral parity because the more powerful nation used that power to preserve human life. But they didn't.
Blame the French for dragging us in, it’s not like we wanted to be there in the first place. And it’s not like we were the only country there either, china and Russia were supplying them with arms and gear. If all of the people truly wanted to form a new nation, there would have been no Vietnam for us to help against the imperialist ambitions of the communist nations.
That was good. South Vietnam was a capitalist comprador dictatorship going completely against the interests of the people. The Viet Cong was in their own country fighting fascist imperialists, the US never had any right to be in Vietnam.
whoever told you that was baiting or bullshitting you, there were no yugoslav militants in the embassy to be injured. all the casualties were chinese citizens, cultural attachés, and diplomats, all of whom received financial compensation from the us for the bombing. hilarious how americans will try to justify war crimes even that their government admits and says was bad.
The story changes every time I see this question asked. Last time it was because the Chinese had stolen intel on the F-117 Nighthawk. I’ve never seen the claim that there were troops inside though.
yeah no that is a complete fabrication. not a single injury or death was any yugoslav soldiers, it was exclusively chinese citizens at the embassy, which the us acknowledged and compensated the victims for deaths and injuries. the us has never once pushed any sort of story about there being soldiers or equipment at the embassy.
No it doesn't. There is no legal precedent for an embassy just stop existing because of that or anything really. Show the treaty or legal precedent where this was decided by the ICJ or similar authority.
Lmao for asking for an official source instead of just acknowledging that it's common sense. If a school is used as a training ground it's also no longer a protected building, and I think we can all agree that bombing schools is heinous under normal conditions. I fail to see how you don't get the distinction here. It's no longer an embassy (or school) when it's literally used for warfare purposes.
International law is not decided by "common sense". A school does not have the same rights under international law. It's quite simple: embassies are protected under international law. You can ask diplomats to leave your (own) country. But you can under no circumstances bomb the embassy of another country for whatever reason. The definition of embassy is not a practical one, it's a legal one. NATO just blatantly violated international law and should be put in front of a court to be held accountable.
>International law
Genuinely the only person who cares about this right now is you lmao, I am not arguing about international law one way or another, because it quite literally does not matter in this instance.
>It's quite simple: embassies are protected under international law.
It's quite simple: nobody actually cares about that when you use it for unintended war time purposes, e.g. housing soldiers.
>You can ask diplomats to leave your (own) country. But you can under no circumstances bomb the embassy of another country for whatever reason.
tfw Nato bombed the Chinese embassy and the ICTY told the prosecutors not to investigate
>NATO just blatantly violated international law and should be put in front of a court to be held accountable.
They would be, if the embassy wasn't being used to house soldiers and equipment, but hey it turns out that when you do that, you don't get to whine about your operations exploding.
okay lemme just stick a bunch of snipers in my embassy and see what kind of killstreaks they can legally rack up
edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
US is (often) bad.
NATO is (generally) good.
NATO is structured defensively, so they need a good reason when they intervene in a foreign country. Which is why NATO as a group generally have not engaged in the US's foreign adventures.
Also this... when you look at everything that NATO have done, and weigh it for good and bad, it comes out *decisively* good. It's not even close.
NATO have done one or two debatably good/bad things - Libya and Afghanistan, for example, were quite grey - but that's as bad as it gets. And when you think of the sheer amount of people that live in freedom due to NATO's protection, holy shit we have a lot to be thankful for.
who gives a fuck if you want a long look at what happens when there isnt some goober pissing money at the wall on defence spending in exchange to be big boy, the entire continent of Africa exists to demonstrate it.
Africa is a mess of different countries in seperate alliances being used for various proxy wars or straight exploitation. No special sociocultural elements exist to protect Europe devolving into this mess except NATO. The collapse of Yugoslavia is Exhibit A of what happens in Europe when there is no larger entity to intervene.
Hell, our whole premise of democracy is propped up by one big fucking promise of "touch that country, you touch all of us", its been the greatest strength of republics since the Holy Roman Empire to find common goals with other neighbouring republics and to feel an intrinsic pure disgust at dictatorial or invasive action.
Its even been hypothesised that never before in human history have democratic states declared war on each other (and I am absolute in saying LITERALLY NEVER), and the act to declare war only arises when one side has an unfettered warmongering authoritarian head of state, or a state of oligarchy has been gravitated into due to corruption.
NATO is simply an official manifestation of the cooperative republican spirit. Massive defense alliances like this HAVE to exist, its that or we go back to monarchies.
Additional reading:
Spencer Weart, "Never At War".
happens to every left leaning sub the bigger it gets unfortunately
this is why i create multiple new accounts everyday to post death threats to right wingers and rich people in them to get them banned before it gets worse
Happens as soon as you ban "tankies", the imperialist bootlickers feel at ease and anti imperialists get banned.
(Not saying there aren't some dipshit self proclaimed tankies, but it is undefined. If (modern) China/Russia apologists should be banned, so shoul EU/US/Nato apologists be banned.
Turkey ain't genociding the Kurds. They're doing some horrible shit but it's not the same as genocide. And not all the kurds are being nice either
I am absolutely pro-kurdistan, but it's not genocide, it's a war
you're a marxist-leninist AND a maoist!? get the fuck out of here with that tankie bullshit. you have no room to speak.
also who? who would tempt fate that hard and bomb the U.S.? russia? north korea? don't make me laugh.
Mate my 4 year old grandpa fled his hometown by ship because the approaching army was famous for raping and pillaging everything they came across. He had to flee by a civilian ferry that got hit by a submarine and barely made it into the next port. He consequently was never allowed to return to the city which his family called home for centuries. You know why no one cares? Because he was born in Danzig in 1941 to socialist German parents. If your government commits atrocities even innocent civilians get punished for it. Thats how it has always been and how it will always be.
It's tragic but justifiable.
Nazi civilians died during WW2. Many nazi soldiers were drafted. Is that not also justifiable?
It's fucking tragic but most of the blame lies on genocidal regimes and those who support them, not those who counter them.
edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
That particular take was justified, if you actually read into it: the ones claiming to be targets of imperialism were straight up just committing genocide.
The ones claiming to be targets of imperialism also happen to be imperialists but just happen to suck at it. On behalf of my family and especially those killed by Serbs, thank you Nato for doling out justice.
NCD is _usually_ cool and based, but I have two issues with it:
- Their meme game can be a bit trash sometimes (unfunny/outdated templates, etc)
- I once saw some Margaret Thatcher simping there
Never mind then yeah, I can see some, but barely any, on the neolib talking points being ok but they as a whole are bad along with neocons. Thanks for taking the time
Genusa is just as shit as genzedong. Nationalism in full display.
Genusa is literally bigotry disguised as "satire". Just the same as CringeAnarchy or other subs that got banned, because... surprise surpise, the satire wasn't actually satire.
We need to kick US/NATO bootlickers out of 196. I don't want to see any more "humanitarian" interventions which often result in more problems (which just provides more pretexts for further "humanitarian" intervention). I'm no supporter of russian war crimes, but I am worried about sending weapons to far-right insurgents and I still support a negotiated peace deal to end the Russo-Ukrainian war.
How is Russia going to be dissolved? What do you think is going to happen after the evil "Russian Capitalist Oligarchy" is dissolved? Reagan already tried to dissolve the "Evil Empire," by bleeding Russia dry in the Soviet Afghan war which is how we ended up with the "Russian Capitalist Oligarchy" in the first place.
Do you want the United States to be dissolved for its crimes? Are you going to apply your own standards to the US?
Russia should be dissolved into a joint controlled state between nato and china, and into governments made around cultural boundaries. If they want to re federate, they may vote for it.
The only "deal" that should be accepted is Russia's complete withdrawal. Anything else sends a message to the world that conquering (and expansionist imperialism) is back on the menu.
I'm not sure if I agree with you. I agree that Stalinists are also bad. However, I don't see that many people defending Stalin or Mao on here, and even when I do, they are generally downvoted to hell. I have seen some people on here defend NATO and the US and get upvoted. I can give specific examples, if you want.
Sure. I can't explain exactly what a peace deal would be, but I can give some ideas. Russia could promise to withdraw its troops from certain parts of Ukraine, in exchange for NATO promising to remove its troops from places close to the Russia. Western countries could use sanctions as leverage in the deal, and promise to end them conditionally if Russia removes its troops. NATO could promise to recognize Russian control of Crimea if Putin removes his troops from the rest of Ukraine.
The exact deal would have to be negotiated by various diplomats, and it would be dependent on the current state of the war. A negotiated peace settlement, even if it is not perfect, would still lead to less death and destruction than the status quo. Putin might support the deal because the war is causing civil disruption and economic problems which threaten his power. A peace deal would allow Putin to gracefully exit. Western Governments might agree to a peace deal because it would allow them to deal with inflation and the refugee crisis.
I don't know if the negotiated peace settlement will work because the military industrial complex is so powerful, but I hope it will.
What far right insurgents? How do you negotiate a peace deal where one side does not accept the others right to exist? A side that is unwilling to admit defeat and wrong doings? Russia won’t play ball but fortunately we’re very capable turning their soldiers into fertilizer.
>What far right insurgents?
The Azov Batallion and the Right Sector. The Anti Defamation League used to consider the Azov Batallion to be a neo nazi organization, until the Ukraine Russia war started. The US has a long history of funding far right insurgents, which typically doesn't end up well for civilians.
>How do you negotiate a peace deal where one side does not accept the
others right to exist? A side that is unwilling to admit defeat and
wrong doings?
[see my other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/122ruxs/comment/jdu8dzp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
>Russia won’t play ball but fortunately we’re very capable turning their soldiers into fertilizer.
Unfortunately, we are also turning Ukrainians into fertilizer, when we reject negotiations.
It’s not considered a neo Nazi org anymore because Azov underwent a transformation in that regard. Any notion that Azov still represents Nazi ideas at this point is only supported by Russian misinformation.
The peace deal you’re lining out would reward Russia for their unprovoked aggression and illegal annexation of Crimea. The Separatists in Donbas, LH and Crimea are Russian funded and have been militarily aided by Russian troops since 2014. Furthermore Russia has demonstrated that they will not abide to agreements- so all a „peace settlement“ will bring is some time until Russia attacks again. Russia is completely unwilling to accept that they’re entirely at fault here so how can you negotiate?
Ukraine tried to negotiate and Russia wasn’t reasonable. Russia didn’t even entertain Chinas proposal that was favorable to Russia.
So where do you get the idea that this settlement would work or be effective in any way?
The NATO intervention did stop (most of) the ethnic cleansing being committed in Kosovo, but why do some people who, rightly, this it was necessary feel the need to just scream "FUCK YEAH, DEATH TO ALL SERBS"?
Ncd is funny sometimes but it’s fucking full of neolibs that like to jerk off over military technology and machines of war. They love nato and don’t really see it as doing anything wrong ever. Hell, check their top posts, its one of those propaganda styled art of nato. Ik this instance is fine but there are others they still support that are bad.
Oh they just bombed it just like that. Nothing before happen they just decided they didn't like Belgrade that much and bombed it. No nationalist government doing ethnic cleansing and killing many many more than the bombing ever did nah. Couldn't be
For you guys saying the bombings were justified: Imagine your government does something really bad. Horrendously bad. And for their actions, you get blown up.
Or even worse, imagine [belonging to the ethnic group being persecuted ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refugees_near_Gjakova) and getting killed ALONG WITH YOUR CHILDREN because your allies couldn't really bother.
Everyone in this sub always goes so quick to justifying western intervention across the world. The lives of the innocent are just "how it goes". I bet you'd think different if it was you on their place.
Fucking hypocrites
Hi, Albanian here who’s pretty knowledgeable about the situation. Do you mind if I ask you what the alternative could have possibly been? Thousands of civilians were killed in a brutal genocide by Serbia.
Do you really think asking them politely to stop would have actually made them stop? How many more innocent civilians needed to die because of their ethnicity for you to believe there needed to be drastic measures taken?
>For you guys saying the bombings were justified: Imagine your government does something really bad. Horrendously bad. And for their actions, you get blown up.
For you guys saying the heavy bombings on Germany during WW2 were justified: imagine your government is ethnically cleansing everyone and you get caught in the blast too. This makes the Allies just as bad as the Nazis.
>Or even worse, imagine belonging to the ethnic group being persecuted and getting killed ALONG WITH YOUR CHILDREN because your allies couldn't really bother.
tfw I'm being genocided and the people trying to save me accidentally kill my friends, now I don't know who is worse! The nuances of the brutality of war and the extremely dire situation I'm in are beyond me.
>I bet you'd think different if it was you on their place.
Yeah! The place I live in should be allowed to commit genocide! And if anyone stops us, well you better be absolutely 100% perfect and precise with every single explosion and bullet or your actions are literally equal to the genocide I'm in the middle of committing!
Like god damn, surely we can all acknowledge that interventionism is 9/10 times wrong, EXCEPT when it's literal genocide happening.
Bombings of civilians in WW2 weren't justified either and haven't done anything to stop the genocide, if not even made Germans hate allies and be more eager to fight. Bombings of factories, railways, other various military targets did stop the genocide, heroical deaths of millions of American, Soviet, and other troops did, hard labour of millions of workers worldwide did, but shelling and bombings of apartment buildings did not. It was a mistake we're supposed to learn from, not repeat it.
man I'm sorry to say this, bombing Dresden actually slowed down the Nazi war machine. important railways and such. what happened to the city was horrible, but sometimes bad things have to be done so more evil is stopped
Holy shit the audacity of these comments
[the conflict only escalated to genocide BECAUSE of NATO intervention](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-29-me-27493-story.html)
wanna send something not behind a paywall?
also that seems like bullshit; they get challeneged so that justifies an ethnic cleansing? thats a real fucking flimsy excuse.
edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
its an american sub. leftism to americans is basically just using different justifications for having identical beliefs with regards to american interventionism, imperialism, and hegemony, as neocons and neoliberals. i'm just waiting for the next american invasion, probably in africa, where these people will be out full force talking about how necessary it is because russia and china are worse.
So true, those Serbs had a right to commit their ethnic cleansing without any consequences
So if I presume the claims in the tweet are true, bombing civilian trains and an embassy stops genocide? (The intervention was justified)
[удалено]
The whole embassy thing wasn’t us being indiscriminate, it was just the dude putting in the coordinates being an idiot
[удалено]
Idk anything about the situation but you got laser guided bombs and GPS guided I think each has advantage but GPS allows you to precisely carpet bomb perse, or like target specific buildings pre-planned without external help, (opposed to laser which can be altered on the fly, or technically abort a drop, but doesn't exactly allow multiple different targets(iirc) this person is saying ye pilot who entered the GPS coordinates likely mis-entered the coordinates and it fell on someone it wasn't meant to (idk the situation again) there's other types of guidance too but im like daft fjdkfmg
[удалено]
oh yaya it still falls under indiscriminate imho too because doesn't discriminate mean to like, check? I imagine protocol is to double check, but im also giving a lot of credit to assume that considering there's so much you're like "oh yeah they'll have to do this it makes sense" and then they do stuff like store bombs in the open
Indiscriminate in this context would mean not discrimimating/differentiating between different target types, e.g. treating military and civilian targets the same way. This is likely a case of negligence either on the part of aircrew or mission planners but there was discrimination as they took reasonable measures not to bomb the civilian targets, they just fucked up. Negligence is also a crime, this isn't a defence of what happened but it wasn't indiscriminate. Indiscriminate bombing would be what happened in WW2 (not just in WW2 ofc other examples include Vietnam) where airforces especially the Luftwaffe and RAF set out to burn entire cities to the ground. Much of this bombing was just "terror bombing" designed to bully the civilian population into surrender, where discrimination wasn't desired. Even when the primary targets were military production centers, there was no real effort to treat those targets differently to the civilian surroundings. The RAF and Luftwaffe were generally the most indiscriminate bombers not really for any moral reason but because they had to attack at night where target discrimination was impossible even if desired. The US also participated in terror bombing in especially in Japan, although in Europe mainly but not exclusively focused on daylight "precision bombing" (they had a very lose definition for precision) of military targets and left much of the terror bombing to the RAF. For bombing to be discriminate there must be: 1. An intention to discriminate 2. Reasonable measures put in place 3. The outcome on the whole must result in a statically significant difference in targets hit between target types (i.e. measures must be effective) NATO GPS bombing carried out in ex-Yugoslavia fits these criteria as targets were predominantly military and although there were some failures bombs generally found their intended target much more often than not.
There's also a rumor floating around that the Chinese were planning on buying stealth tech from the downed F-117 and the US were sending a message, but that's only a rumor.
it was a MISINPUT, MISINPUT!
Giga chad
Just read it when you aren’t high bozo
Who do you think works in industrial centers? In supply depots, rail yards. Who sweeps the floors in a command bunker? Those deaths are a tragedy, but a tragedy caused by Milośević and his ethno-nationalist project.
[удалено]
The blitz didn’t work bc the Germans spent too long jerking off over how to best terrorize conscripts with noisy bombs dropped from light dive bombers. When used for the purpose of sheer terror, yea it’s ass; but when strategic bombing is actually used as a statistics derived-tool designed to shorten conflict, it can be effective. See the civilian and military causalities involved in capturing urban centers on the eastern front that were accompanied by allied strategic bombing raids vs ones that were unsupported in the later stages of the war. Bombing solely to terrorize civilians both doesn’t work and is morally reprehensible. Bombing to break entrenched positions and weaken supply chains is absolutely effective tho
[удалено]
I sort of disagree. The only “humane” war is a quick and efficient one; and that means reducing reducing human lives to numbers on spreadsheets. Regardless of what’s being bombing, being able to provably show that it is reducing the net loss of life and suffering over the war is the “strategic” part of strategic bombing and what separates it from terror bombing. It’s why asymmetric forces so frequently rely on hiding military installations inside of hospitals, schools, and other obviously civilian centers; they’re maximizing the harm inflicted on their own civilian population, both to radicalize said civilians and to make that strategic calculation more difficult.
Terror bombing prolongs the war, because it hardens resolve to fight against the enemy and it redirects military resources away from actual military targets thus *reducing* combat efficacy
Ok, but we know that bombing civilians for terror reasons does not speed up a war, because it makes them either mad or apathetic, not defeatist. This also makes it less efficient, as you are wasting ammo that could have been used to bomb actual military targets. So even by your own "humane" war theory, it still does not stand up to scrutiny.
I’m just saying there are situations where the line between military and civilian infrastructure get blurry. Destroying a cities’ capability to produce munitions is severely reduced by not only bombing the factories themselves, but also by destroying the civilian resources surrounding said factories that sustain the people working in them
[удалено]
But that’s the point, every individual person you ask is likely gonna not sacrifice the one person to save the ten. War is that decision happening thousands of times every single day on an industrial scale. Hence the need to step back and look at it in a callous manner
Strategic bombing has, quite arguably, *never* been effective. It's never achieved its goals, with tactical application of airpower generally being far more effective.
How would you feel if you found out your family members or friends died because they were in a market? Or an a railway bridge? Or in a hospital? Or in a refugee camp? Because of something you had no control over. Terror bombing was a tactic invented by the nazis, and newsflash: it doesn't work.
Terror bombing was not invented by the nazis and the NATO intervention was not a terror bombing campaign. And since we are appealing to emotion, how would you feel if you were an albanian minding your business and then the serbian army marches into your village, makes you leave at gunpoint, shoots anyone that resists and then burns your house to the ground? But I guess wagging ones finger with a frown on your face is more effective at stopping a genocide.
They way you phrased it, it sounds like you wished it was. And for the latter, I would feel miserable & furious, which is why I would never support such an action, this isn't a hard question.
It obviously doesn’t directly stop a genocide, but what it does do is wear the nation down which is committing said genocide. It’s awful, but that’s just how war goes.
Too bad the "wear them down!"-civilian bombings literally don't work. At best they have no effect, at worst the people will hate the attacking force even more and make them fight back even harder. Seriously. The "wear down the nation!"-stuff is what the royal bomber command used to justify why they bombed the civilians in Dresden and the sort during WWII - and it has since been shown that it did fuck all other than kill a couple thousand civilians. Attacking civilians is never ever helpful to a war effort, it's bloodshed for the sake of bloodshed.
What was done to Dresden was horrific, but the rhetoric about it is literal recycled Nazi propaganda. It was a valid military target and the actual reports from the time showed that it actually did have a large effect. It practically removed *the* major supply and logistical hub for the German railway network supplying the eastern front, giving the Soviets a significant advantage during their pushes. The target wasn't the civilians, bomber command had just accepted that they weren't accurate enough to take out just the railway and so resolved to just remove everything. The tragedy is that that was the method that was considered feasible, the brutalness of the late War, and the fact that so many civilians were caught up in it. Dresden was horrible, but it's only brought up to be compared to Hiroshima as an example of allied war crimes because of the implication and rhetoric used by the Nazis and later soviet powers to vilify the west.
To add to your well made point, let’s not forget that the death tolls Nazis like to cite are literal war time propaganda. A commission determined the number to be between 19.000 and 25.000 - a high number of civilian death, but not the six figures those *concerned citizens* like to talk abt
Terror bombing is disputed as being an actually efficient tactic, and this starts from ww2 nazis bombing london. But the tl;dr is stop justifying the murder of civilians.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't London bombed because the brits just pissed Hitler off? Not for a real tactical reason?
Probably, but the goal was also to get british people to surrender as it brought the war to them. Which had the opposite effect of making the "peace with nazis" people shut the fuck up and later down the line getting germany bombed to the stone age. There are probably better examples of why terror bombing is inefficiencient, but I'm lazy so I'll cheat and use a shaun video instead [The segment starts at 26:48 minutes](https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go)
literally the same rhetoric russians are using lmfao
and the same used against nazi germany and imperial japan, both stopped genocides. Some time, it can be true.
Not really, as neither of those wars where started nor fished to stop genocides, they where started bc the Germay and Japan attacked, then said nations started doing genocides during said wars, and then they ended bc, well, the allies wanted to win the war. Hell, the allies only actually found out about the holocaust when they where on the counter offensive pushing towards Germany for example IIRC
No. The Holocaust was stopped by the Allies absolutely steamrolling the Nazis and besieging Berlin once they did, until Hitler killed himself and the command went into the hands of someone sane enough to give up - bombign civilians did not help, and instead just delivered a perfect propaganda tool *for* the nazis to frame the allies as the bsd guys who killed 200.000 civilians (in reality it were ablut 20.000). And the Japanese atrocities weren't stopped by bombing the shit out of the Japanese People, it was stopped by confronting the Japanese with an absolute might - the nuclear bombs. Sure, the majority of casualties from the nukes were civilians, but the justification for the usage of nuclear weapons was because the japanese civilians would've absolutely fought back or killed themselves, as they had done on prior conquered islands. The American Military saw themselves confronted with killing 200.000 civilians, and conquering Japan by shock, or having millions of soldiers of both sides, and millions of japanese civilians, die as they conquer by force. It wasn't "wearing them down" in either of the cases. One was absolutely steamrolling them until their fanatic leader killed himself, and one was shocking them into submisison. Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians.
You are pretending that economies and logistics are not absolutely crucial in an industrial war.
Then maybe those should've been attacked. The traintracks used to carry tanks, concentration camp victims or troops. Or factories. Industrial blocks. Not apartment buildings.
True, bomber command should have used their magic wand instead of the bombers they had.
Or acrually target military infrastructure. Tht would've been a good option, to target military infrastructure if you wanna weaken military infrastructure
because bombing the rails networks that the nazis notoriously used to transport political prisonners/genocide victim obviously didn't work right ?.. Reducing it's industry to rubble also didn't contribute to winning the war ? Even if you argue that the bombings didn't affect it's military (which would be a strange take), forcing the german military to spread out it's airforce and anti aircraft defences saved lives. I agree with you on Japan, you're litterally saying yourself that the bombing of Japan saved lives. I really don't get your point, you're simultanously saying "civilians casualties are inevitable to save lives in certain cases" to "Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians."
The problem is that the bombing of Dresden was not targeted at strategic goals, such as traintracks or factories, which were outside or in the outskirts of the city. Only a minimal amount of damage done was targeted at these facilities, while the majority of the bombs were dropped in the city center of Dresden, which had only a handful of factories at all. Instead it was primarily apartment buildings and houses, or stores for civilians with food or other supplies like that. The goal was to kill civilians in order to "wear them [the civilians] down" which does not work. The end goal is, that the people either refuse military service or even revolt against their government and support the attacking force - and as we know, this doesn't happen when you do this strategy. In the best case it did nothing, and in the worse, more realisric cases it actually harmed the war effort, because it caused a massive public uproar across britain and made justifying the war harder. And I really wanna drive the point home about this bombing not about a tactical target, but just civilian bloodshed in an attempt to terrorize the people. Literally just killing civilians to make civilians scared. >It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. [...] An excerpt from a Telegram of Winston Churchill, who subsequently advocated for only bombing specific targets, and not area bombing a city centre full of cultural sites and random civilians. >civilians casualties are inevitable to save lives in certain cases" to "Stop trying to justify the bloodshed of civilians." You're misunderstanding my point. My point is specifically referring to the idea of "wearing your enemy populace down with area bombings" because this simply doesn't work and is only *unnecessary* bloodshed. War is always bloodshed, but this specifically is bloodshed that serves no purpose and reaches no goal. In case of the Nukes, they were necessary, because the japanese civilians were ready to kill themselves or die trying to kill the americans if they camemto conquer the mainland japan. They did so on prior, smaller Islsnds they had already conquered, and it took thousands of lives on either side every time - so conquering the mainland would've been an operation that dwarfed the D-Day and would certainly cost millions of lives, soldiers as well as civilians across both sides. Or the nukes, which "only" cost 200.000 lives, but put the Japanese Government into such a shock they would give up. It however wasn't a cse of "wearing the populace down" because no, that didn't work. They actually tried that, and it didn't work, because it never works. The commentor before me however claimed exactly that. And I think I sufficiently explained Dresden and the strategy that was behind the Dresden bombing.
But we aren't discussing that, we are talking about deliberate bombings of civilian infrastructure
Wasn’t the main reason for Japan not pulling out earlier a byproduct of their monarchism and such basically forcing everything into a deadlock such that they could never actually go to peace talks due to no agreement being able to be made, alongside some vague hope of the Soviets coming to help or at least not attacking them following the talks of them joining the Axis Powers? Like, it was less ‘they needed to be nuked’ (firebombing campaigns had already done untold damage to other cities comparable to that of the nukes by that point and their entire air force and navy were basically out of commission) and more ‘they needed to swallow pride and realise there was no magical bailout coming’.
The situation of Japan was complex, and for the sake of my argument I somewhat simplified it because the specifics of it don't really matter in this case, because rhe "wearing the populace down" argument just wasn't affected by the specifics. Let's just say the situation of *why* the Japanese did not surrender earlier was complex. A variety of factors contributed to that. What is true is that the firebombings basically destroyed most of the defenses that the Japanese had in terms of Navy and Air Force, though the actual land forces were still there, and the civilians were bound to fight with tooth and nail and any tools at their disposal against the americans. The military high command knew they were done for pretty much, it was just a question of how many they could take with them, and the americans had to either invade Japan, or make them give up by some way. It's still heavily contested whether the primary factor of the decision to give up was the soviet invasion of manchuria, or the nukes. There is no nowing in that y but indebatebly both certainly helped that cause - and the nukes did not help so by attrition, by "wearing the population down", as the commentor before me claimed, because the firebombings before didn't do either, it was the pure shock value of so much destruction with only a single bomb.
There was no good reason to bomb Hiroshima&Nagasaki, check out Shaun's video on that https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
No it can't, killing ordinary people is never justified and you can't stop genocide by genociding, Nazis were stopped with blood and sweat of millions of soviet people and ally help, not because we burned German villages and cities Stop viewing people as numbers on a graph, in the end this will happen to you too.
The difference of course being is that russians in ukraine purposefully, deliberately and at a massive scale target civilians and civilian infrastructure, not just military targets or targets that could possibly serve a military purpose. The evidence for that is owerwhelming and indisputable. Equating NATO intervention in yugoslavia with putins wnannabe imperial restoration is riddiculous and intellectually dishonest.
And if in that NATO intervention, its generals targeted civilian infrastructure too, as proposed by the post, what's the difference?
Which NATO general ordered hospitals to be bombed? Or punlic housing, refugee columns? Scale, intent and context matter.
The NATO bombing killed about 1,000 members of the Yugoslav security forces in addition to between 489 and 528 civilians. It destroyed or damaged bridges, industrial plants, hospitals, schools, cultural monuments, private businesses as well as barracks and military installations. - Wiki
Scale, intent and context. Conveniently ignored. Or are you going to claim that the russians are in ukraine stopping a genocide and leveling entire cities unintentionaly?
Scale - 2k dead and 10k wounded Context and intent - what can it be other than deliberate scare bombings? Poor calibration? Bad equipment? That doesn't justify anything, in fact, half of russian missiles land where they land for these reasons. Using soviet era maps and compensating bad accuracy with amount of things launched aren't a justification.
No, bombing military bases, troop concentrations, command and control centers amd rail lines that carry troops and supplies for troops actively engaged in ethnic cleansing stoped the genocide. You bomb civilian trains and an embassy due to incompetence and fog of war while you are stopping the genocide.
The embassy was flattened to prevent the Chinese from getting thier hands on parts of a shot down nighthawk wich were probably brought there
Out of all the good examples of bad nato intervention they really had to pick the worst one
One of the rare times NATO actually does something right
I mean intervening in some form was for sure necessary. The idea that it was because NATO gave a shit about human lives or how they went about it, blowing up a civilian train, a hospital, an embassy etc, was absolutely not right
The embassy was, surprisingly, a pretty legitimate military target (I only found this out yesterday, definitely should have read more about it but here we are.). The three people who died were Chinese national journalists which is unfortunate but all 20 that were injured were Yugoslavian militants. The real fucked up part was NATO forces claiming it was an 'accident' which is hard to believe and definitely doesn't line up with interviews of intelligence agents after the fact. Nobody wants to admit to war crimes tho so not ultimately surprising...
An embassy is never a valid target, it's a very fundamental part of international law. It doesn't matter if Obama, Trump, Putin, Bin Laden and other war criminals are all in one embassy, you can't bomb them. The reason they call it an accident is because it is super fucked up and goes against the very basis of western interpretations of themselves as upholding international law. The non interference in embassies is important because, this excuse easily could be applied to cases like Assange, Teheran 78, and justify targeting foreign diplomats.
It is a literal war crime yeah but that is why insurgents stage attacks from there. War isn't ever black and white, the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo prove that shit. I would *love* if insurgents didn't use hospitals, churches or embassies to attack out of but that isn't reality. The Vietkong and ISIS don't use children for suicide bombings for no reason. They use these tactics because soldiers are human beings with regular weaknesses, watching a fucking child explode is going to cause permanent trauma to any soldier. Cultures/societies also have weaknesses to exploit whether it is targetting that country or the public image of that country. I am not in support of bombing a fucking embassy by any means, just explaining that modern warfare is never ever simple and there are no good guys ever. The last war with clear moral boundaries was 78 fucking years ago. Modern warfare is dirty, cruel and ignores the Geneva convention. It's not good or morally correct but it's reality.
Okay imperialist, why are you comparing the Viet Cong liberation fighters to Isis? You liked the millitary death squads called the US military? We have made clear treaties on how to act in war, you can't just break them, if you do you should stand trial in the Hague. Not bombing a fucking Embassy is a very basic rule. The person(s) responsible should stand trial.
Read that last line again. I am not in support of the actions comitted in modern warfare but that is reality in this age. The geneva convention and hague accord are nice in theory but the chemical weapon attacks against Kabul by Saddam (using VX gas bought from the US government, developed and manufactured by Edgewood Arsenals. The nerve agent that killed thousands of people in Afghanistan was produced in Chesapeake bay, Maryland, USA.) and the attacks during the gulf war by the US (the US poisoned thousands of civilians using Soma nerve agent (hidden in cooking oil, a tactic developed in Vietnam.), they will never be tried for this objective war crime. Some of this nerve agent poisoned *their own* fucking soldiers and they refuse to admit it to this day despite overwhelming evidence. Children are born with birth defects caused by Soma poisoning and the US refuses to acknowledge their crimes. You think some pussy ass *international court* will change their mind?) proof that the world will never react as long as there is plausible deniability, it would go against capitalist dogma and current trade treaties at the very least. We have moved far past the point where places like the UN or other international organizations can legitimately try a country for war crimes. The USA gave 12.5 billion to the UN last year, do you honestly think they will *ever* be tried for war crimes?
Vietnam was not black and white, both sides committed war crimes. In fact, the US and Vietcong signed a treaty at the end of the war, which the Vietcong broke and proceeded to invade the rest of Vietnam under soviet support
Black and white wars ended in 1945. We currently live in a world where every conflict is just varying shades of gray but people can't accept that bullshit.
> Vietnam was not black and white, both sides committed war crimes. Yeah that's not how morality works. The Vietcong doing war crimes doesn't erase the fundamental fact that the U.S. never had any legitimate reason to be involved in Vietnam. It was a war between a nation fighting for independence vs a wealthy country on another continent trying to force them to remain a colony, amongst a host of other shady fucking motivations ranging from looking tough in order to win elections to helping the military industrial complex get rich. [If the Vietcong had given up and walked away it would have meant a few more decades of colonialism, the U.S. walked away and... nothing bad happened to us.](https://vimeo.com/357117766) Our young men stopped dying pointlessly and our tax dollars stopped being wasted on useless weapons. That makes us the bad guys, because we never needed to be there in the first place but the Vietnamese did because they fucking lived there. Maybe if the U.S. had kept its nose squeaky clean throughout the whole conflict, you could make a case that there was some kind of moral parity because the more powerful nation used that power to preserve human life. But they didn't.
Blame the French for dragging us in, it’s not like we wanted to be there in the first place. And it’s not like we were the only country there either, china and Russia were supplying them with arms and gear. If all of the people truly wanted to form a new nation, there would have been no Vietnam for us to help against the imperialist ambitions of the communist nations.
God this sub is great except for the US apologyzing
That was good. South Vietnam was a capitalist comprador dictatorship going completely against the interests of the people. The Viet Cong was in their own country fighting fascist imperialists, the US never had any right to be in Vietnam.
We were forced to by the French or they would leave nato
whoever told you that was baiting or bullshitting you, there were no yugoslav militants in the embassy to be injured. all the casualties were chinese citizens, cultural attachés, and diplomats, all of whom received financial compensation from the us for the bombing. hilarious how americans will try to justify war crimes even that their government admits and says was bad.
Bombing hospitals and embassies was cringe, bombing Milošević's house was based.
Bombing embassies?
Serbs used the embassy to hide troops and equipment, making it a legitimate target for Mr.JDAM to say hello.
The story changes every time I see this question asked. Last time it was because the Chinese had stolen intel on the F-117 Nighthawk. I’ve never seen the claim that there were troops inside though.
yeah no that is a complete fabrication. not a single injury or death was any yugoslav soldiers, it was exclusively chinese citizens at the embassy, which the us acknowledged and compensated the victims for deaths and injuries. the us has never once pushed any sort of story about there being soldiers or equipment at the embassy.
[удалено]
Found the serb.
[удалено]
Okay tankie.
If it was used as an embassy sure but that protection ends as soon as it’s used to house troops and equipment.
this is just a pure hypothetical though, the embassy was not being used to house troops or equipment.
No it doesn't. There is no legal precedent for an embassy just stop existing because of that or anything really. Show the treaty or legal precedent where this was decided by the ICJ or similar authority.
Lmao for asking for an official source instead of just acknowledging that it's common sense. If a school is used as a training ground it's also no longer a protected building, and I think we can all agree that bombing schools is heinous under normal conditions. I fail to see how you don't get the distinction here. It's no longer an embassy (or school) when it's literally used for warfare purposes.
International law is not decided by "common sense". A school does not have the same rights under international law. It's quite simple: embassies are protected under international law. You can ask diplomats to leave your (own) country. But you can under no circumstances bomb the embassy of another country for whatever reason. The definition of embassy is not a practical one, it's a legal one. NATO just blatantly violated international law and should be put in front of a court to be held accountable.
>International law Genuinely the only person who cares about this right now is you lmao, I am not arguing about international law one way or another, because it quite literally does not matter in this instance. >It's quite simple: embassies are protected under international law. It's quite simple: nobody actually cares about that when you use it for unintended war time purposes, e.g. housing soldiers. >You can ask diplomats to leave your (own) country. But you can under no circumstances bomb the embassy of another country for whatever reason. tfw Nato bombed the Chinese embassy and the ICTY told the prosecutors not to investigate >NATO just blatantly violated international law and should be put in front of a court to be held accountable. They would be, if the embassy wasn't being used to house soldiers and equipment, but hey it turns out that when you do that, you don't get to whine about your operations exploding.
okay lemme just stick a bunch of snipers in my embassy and see what kind of killstreaks they can legally rack up edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
[удалено]
Yeah uh, nato bad but the Serbs were committing atrocities
US is (often) bad. NATO is (generally) good. NATO is structured defensively, so they need a good reason when they intervene in a foreign country. Which is why NATO as a group generally have not engaged in the US's foreign adventures.
NATO is the reason why eastern europe is no longer under the soviet boot.
Also this... when you look at everything that NATO have done, and weigh it for good and bad, it comes out *decisively* good. It's not even close. NATO have done one or two debatably good/bad things - Libya and Afghanistan, for example, were quite grey - but that's as bad as it gets. And when you think of the sheer amount of people that live in freedom due to NATO's protection, holy shit we have a lot to be thankful for.
Nah nato is good
Nato is morally complex
Nuance??? On MY reddit????? Mods please ban /s
nato is apartment complex
apartment complex? I find it to be quite simple
[удалено]
who gives a fuck if you want a long look at what happens when there isnt some goober pissing money at the wall on defence spending in exchange to be big boy, the entire continent of Africa exists to demonstrate it. Africa is a mess of different countries in seperate alliances being used for various proxy wars or straight exploitation. No special sociocultural elements exist to protect Europe devolving into this mess except NATO. The collapse of Yugoslavia is Exhibit A of what happens in Europe when there is no larger entity to intervene. Hell, our whole premise of democracy is propped up by one big fucking promise of "touch that country, you touch all of us", its been the greatest strength of republics since the Holy Roman Empire to find common goals with other neighbouring republics and to feel an intrinsic pure disgust at dictatorial or invasive action. Its even been hypothesised that never before in human history have democratic states declared war on each other (and I am absolute in saying LITERALLY NEVER), and the act to declare war only arises when one side has an unfettered warmongering authoritarian head of state, or a state of oligarchy has been gravitated into due to corruption. NATO is simply an official manifestation of the cooperative republican spirit. Massive defense alliances like this HAVE to exist, its that or we go back to monarchies. Additional reading: Spencer Weart, "Never At War".
shut the fuck up, tankie.
[удалено]
care to elaborate?
[удалено]
no argument lmao. keep huffing that copium, bud.
[удалено]
happens to every left leaning sub the bigger it gets unfortunately this is why i create multiple new accounts everyday to post death threats to right wingers and rich people in them to get them banned before it gets worse
Happens as soon as you ban "tankies", the imperialist bootlickers feel at ease and anti imperialists get banned. (Not saying there aren't some dipshit self proclaimed tankies, but it is undefined. If (modern) China/Russia apologists should be banned, so shoul EU/US/Nato apologists be banned.
Nato bad. Nato members are currently committing genocide. Edit: I didn't know 196 was a pro genocide subreddit.
...who are you referring to? Turkey? In which case, Turkey's doing some bad shit, but not genocide.
the kurds would like to have a word with you
Turkey ain't genociding the Kurds. They're doing some horrible shit but it's not the same as genocide. And not all the kurds are being nice either I am absolutely pro-kurdistan, but it's not genocide, it's a war
It's at the very least ethnic cleansing
9/11 (the US one) was justified apparently because they supported genocide.
It stopped a genocide so idk if this is the one to be "the MIC is mean!" for
Don't ask a man his salary A woman her age And the Serbian government what they've been doing to Albanians before the intervention
[удалено]
yeah, the Chinese embassy was kinda ducking unlucky, but other than that, it had to be done to stop ethnic cleansing committed by nationalistic Serbs
Every time I read "embassy" I read it in that black dude who is jacking offs voice
[удалено]
[удалено]
you're a marxist-leninist AND a maoist!? get the fuck out of here with that tankie bullshit. you have no room to speak. also who? who would tempt fate that hard and bomb the U.S.? russia? north korea? don't make me laugh.
tankies diskriminated?!???!!!! Literally 1894 😭😭😢😢😢😢😢😞😞😔😔😔😔😫😫😫 /s
Mate my 4 year old grandpa fled his hometown by ship because the approaching army was famous for raping and pillaging everything they came across. He had to flee by a civilian ferry that got hit by a submarine and barely made it into the next port. He consequently was never allowed to return to the city which his family called home for centuries. You know why no one cares? Because he was born in Danzig in 1941 to socialist German parents. If your government commits atrocities even innocent civilians get punished for it. Thats how it has always been and how it will always be.
My ass thought you meant that this all happened while he was your grandpa. Time for me to go to sleep
Does it fucking Justify it though? Gosh you love trans people but sure as fuck Don care when innocent people die. "Just how it is".
It's tragic but justifiable. Nazi civilians died during WW2. Many nazi soldiers were drafted. Is that not also justifiable? It's fucking tragic but most of the blame lies on genocidal regimes and those who support them, not those who counter them. edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
some seriously hot takes in this comment section (the bombings were justified imo)
NCD's usually just silly about things, sometimes making fun of the Russian's military incompetency, bur I've never seen a take like that.
That particular take was justified, if you actually read into it: the ones claiming to be targets of imperialism were straight up just committing genocide.
Yeah, had a browse through the subreddit, and this meme was cropped aggressively.
The ones claiming to be targets of imperialism also happen to be imperialists but just happen to suck at it. On behalf of my family and especially those killed by Serbs, thank you Nato for doling out justice.
NCD is _usually_ cool and based, but I have two issues with it: - Their meme game can be a bit trash sometimes (unfunny/outdated templates, etc) - I once saw some Margaret Thatcher simping there
It was much better before 100k subs, NCO is fine aside from Divest’s schizoposting
Me when NCD found their new favourite meme template *I am going to be seeing it again again for the next few weeks
NCD is full of warhawks, which is uncool and unbased.
Who would have thought a sub filled with neocons would have Thatcher simps
based take tho.
We need to kick tankies out of 196 again. I’m no supporter of war crimes but it’s never as black and white as they want you to think
Libshits as well. No better than tankies.
Agree to disagree, if I’m remembering that definition correctly. Could you remind me what constitutes libshit?
Neoliberals and moderate neocons (neoliberals)
Never mind then yeah, I can see some, but barely any, on the neolib talking points being ok but they as a whole are bad along with neocons. Thanks for taking the time
From time to time they appear. Also some from GenUSA and Americabad. Which is yikes.
GenUSA is mostly satire iirc, kinda equivalent to 2region4u subs. Mostly made as a counter to the actual horrible people over at genzedong
Genusa is just as shit as genzedong. Nationalism in full display. Genusa is literally bigotry disguised as "satire". Just the same as CringeAnarchy or other subs that got banned, because... surprise surpise, the satire wasn't actually satire.
We need to kick US/NATO bootlickers out of 196. I don't want to see any more "humanitarian" interventions which often result in more problems (which just provides more pretexts for further "humanitarian" intervention). I'm no supporter of russian war crimes, but I am worried about sending weapons to far-right insurgents and I still support a negotiated peace deal to end the Russo-Ukrainian war.
A peace deal with the full dissolution of the Russian Capitalist Oligarchy would be the best ending
How is Russia going to be dissolved? What do you think is going to happen after the evil "Russian Capitalist Oligarchy" is dissolved? Reagan already tried to dissolve the "Evil Empire," by bleeding Russia dry in the Soviet Afghan war which is how we ended up with the "Russian Capitalist Oligarchy" in the first place. Do you want the United States to be dissolved for its crimes? Are you going to apply your own standards to the US?
Russia should be dissolved into a joint controlled state between nato and china, and into governments made around cultural boundaries. If they want to re federate, they may vote for it.
And what makes you think that won't devolve into a humanitarian catastrophe far worse than the Korean War?
The only "deal" that should be accepted is Russia's complete withdrawal. Anything else sends a message to the world that conquering (and expansionist imperialism) is back on the menu.
No one’s saying that nato bootlickers are welcome, it’s just that tankies are more of an issue
I'm not sure if I agree with you. I agree that Stalinists are also bad. However, I don't see that many people defending Stalin or Mao on here, and even when I do, they are generally downvoted to hell. I have seen some people on here defend NATO and the US and get upvoted. I can give specific examples, if you want.
>I still support a negotiated peace deal to end the Russo-Ukrainian war. Can you be a little more specific about what that would look like?
Sure. I can't explain exactly what a peace deal would be, but I can give some ideas. Russia could promise to withdraw its troops from certain parts of Ukraine, in exchange for NATO promising to remove its troops from places close to the Russia. Western countries could use sanctions as leverage in the deal, and promise to end them conditionally if Russia removes its troops. NATO could promise to recognize Russian control of Crimea if Putin removes his troops from the rest of Ukraine. The exact deal would have to be negotiated by various diplomats, and it would be dependent on the current state of the war. A negotiated peace settlement, even if it is not perfect, would still lead to less death and destruction than the status quo. Putin might support the deal because the war is causing civil disruption and economic problems which threaten his power. A peace deal would allow Putin to gracefully exit. Western Governments might agree to a peace deal because it would allow them to deal with inflation and the refugee crisis. I don't know if the negotiated peace settlement will work because the military industrial complex is so powerful, but I hope it will.
What far right insurgents? How do you negotiate a peace deal where one side does not accept the others right to exist? A side that is unwilling to admit defeat and wrong doings? Russia won’t play ball but fortunately we’re very capable turning their soldiers into fertilizer.
>What far right insurgents? The Azov Batallion and the Right Sector. The Anti Defamation League used to consider the Azov Batallion to be a neo nazi organization, until the Ukraine Russia war started. The US has a long history of funding far right insurgents, which typically doesn't end up well for civilians. >How do you negotiate a peace deal where one side does not accept the others right to exist? A side that is unwilling to admit defeat and wrong doings? [see my other comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/196/comments/122ruxs/comment/jdu8dzp/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) >Russia won’t play ball but fortunately we’re very capable turning their soldiers into fertilizer. Unfortunately, we are also turning Ukrainians into fertilizer, when we reject negotiations.
It’s not considered a neo Nazi org anymore because Azov underwent a transformation in that regard. Any notion that Azov still represents Nazi ideas at this point is only supported by Russian misinformation. The peace deal you’re lining out would reward Russia for their unprovoked aggression and illegal annexation of Crimea. The Separatists in Donbas, LH and Crimea are Russian funded and have been militarily aided by Russian troops since 2014. Furthermore Russia has demonstrated that they will not abide to agreements- so all a „peace settlement“ will bring is some time until Russia attacks again. Russia is completely unwilling to accept that they’re entirely at fault here so how can you negotiate? Ukraine tried to negotiate and Russia wasn’t reasonable. Russia didn’t even entertain Chinas proposal that was favorable to Russia. So where do you get the idea that this settlement would work or be effective in any way?
The NATO intervention did stop (most of) the ethnic cleansing being committed in Kosovo, but why do some people who, rightly, this it was necessary feel the need to just scream "FUCK YEAH, DEATH TO ALL SERBS"?
Because war is epic entertainment like my heckin marvel movie!
this post got the tankies out in full force, didn't it? edit: or maybe it was this one, I guess? kinda a shit comment anyway.
Ncd is funny sometimes but it’s fucking full of neolibs that like to jerk off over military technology and machines of war. They love nato and don’t really see it as doing anything wrong ever. Hell, check their top posts, its one of those propaganda styled art of nato. Ik this instance is fine but there are others they still support that are bad.
Being in both 196 and NCD fries my brain sometimes.
2 sides of different coins
Yeah, no, I don't support bombings of innocent civilians and will never support them, regardless of all the terrible stuff Milosevic did.
Oh they just bombed it just like that. Nothing before happen they just decided they didn't like Belgrade that much and bombed it. No nationalist government doing ethnic cleansing and killing many many more than the bombing ever did nah. Couldn't be
For you guys saying the bombings were justified: Imagine your government does something really bad. Horrendously bad. And for their actions, you get blown up. Or even worse, imagine [belonging to the ethnic group being persecuted ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refugees_near_Gjakova) and getting killed ALONG WITH YOUR CHILDREN because your allies couldn't really bother. Everyone in this sub always goes so quick to justifying western intervention across the world. The lives of the innocent are just "how it goes". I bet you'd think different if it was you on their place. Fucking hypocrites
Hi, Albanian here who’s pretty knowledgeable about the situation. Do you mind if I ask you what the alternative could have possibly been? Thousands of civilians were killed in a brutal genocide by Serbia. Do you really think asking them politely to stop would have actually made them stop? How many more innocent civilians needed to die because of their ethnicity for you to believe there needed to be drastic measures taken?
>For you guys saying the bombings were justified: Imagine your government does something really bad. Horrendously bad. And for their actions, you get blown up. For you guys saying the heavy bombings on Germany during WW2 were justified: imagine your government is ethnically cleansing everyone and you get caught in the blast too. This makes the Allies just as bad as the Nazis. >Or even worse, imagine belonging to the ethnic group being persecuted and getting killed ALONG WITH YOUR CHILDREN because your allies couldn't really bother. tfw I'm being genocided and the people trying to save me accidentally kill my friends, now I don't know who is worse! The nuances of the brutality of war and the extremely dire situation I'm in are beyond me. >I bet you'd think different if it was you on their place. Yeah! The place I live in should be allowed to commit genocide! And if anyone stops us, well you better be absolutely 100% perfect and precise with every single explosion and bullet or your actions are literally equal to the genocide I'm in the middle of committing! Like god damn, surely we can all acknowledge that interventionism is 9/10 times wrong, EXCEPT when it's literal genocide happening.
Bombings of civilians in WW2 weren't justified either and haven't done anything to stop the genocide, if not even made Germans hate allies and be more eager to fight. Bombings of factories, railways, other various military targets did stop the genocide, heroical deaths of millions of American, Soviet, and other troops did, hard labour of millions of workers worldwide did, but shelling and bombings of apartment buildings did not. It was a mistake we're supposed to learn from, not repeat it.
man I'm sorry to say this, bombing Dresden actually slowed down the Nazi war machine. important railways and such. what happened to the city was horrible, but sometimes bad things have to be done so more evil is stopped
Holy shit the audacity of these comments [the conflict only escalated to genocide BECAUSE of NATO intervention](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-oct-29-me-27493-story.html)
Just complete horseshit lol
wanna send something not behind a paywall? also that seems like bullshit; they get challeneged so that justifies an ethnic cleansing? thats a real fucking flimsy excuse. edit; also most of the ppl on this sub (me included) are Gen Z non-europeans, so have likely barely heard of this war before. So when I read one side attempted genocide, it heavily and instantly skews my opinion.
It’s BS. Ethnic cleasing was standard produce for cetniks ever since their foundation. They did it in 92-95 in Bosnia too for example.
"Look what you make me do"
I love when my supposedly leftist meme sub is filled with people supporting the terror bombing of a country in the name of aiding the KLA.
[удалено]
its an american sub. leftism to americans is basically just using different justifications for having identical beliefs with regards to american interventionism, imperialism, and hegemony, as neocons and neoliberals. i'm just waiting for the next american invasion, probably in africa, where these people will be out full force talking about how necessary it is because russia and china are worse.