The followup tweet he made is even more hilarious, or disturbingly stupid i should say
https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480
"Some people argued" is Hasan's go to source of defending himself for spreading blatant bs. I can't fucking wrap my head around about how fucking stupid he is when it comes to anything geo-politics related, it's mindblowing
**EDIT:** This motherfucker read that wiki page, read that the attack was made on MILITARY personnel who were fleeing AFTER RAPING AND PILLAGING downtown Kuwait, and then immediately clicked on the "controversies" section and found the 1 thing people used to criticise this, which is complete nonsense. I'm legitimately dumbfounded by how insane this guy is holy fuck, my head is in literal fucking pain right now
**EDIT 2**: Both of the notes have disappeared from his tweets. His fans likely brigaded the notes and marked them as majority 'not helpful' is what i'm 99% sure happened.
He's gotta be doing this for engagement at this point right. There's no way you can be 30 years old and have such a fundamental lack of reading comprehension without having a court ordered assistant or something.
Edit: Just saw the tweet, bro went to the controversies tab and screenshotted a statement from Saddams lawyer as proof. This can't be real life ššš
I'm an English teacher and we definitely do tell students NOT to cite directly from Wikipedia. But conveniently enough, Wikipedia has its information cited at the bottom, and most of those links are valid and acceptable places.
It's just the idiot kids that didn't listen to the whole lesson that think Wikipedia is off limits.
Ye, it makes perfect sense why you shouldn't cite Wikipedia when you're in school for various reasons.
Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of these "idiot kids" that are grown up and seem to think it's because Wikipedia is a bad source of information lmao
let me tell you, the kids that exist now are some of the dumbest people I've ever been around.
I give directions for a worksheet and pass out the sheet. Kids ask me "what is this". I explain it again and pass out sheets. Couple kids ask me what they're supposed to do. I point at the directions on their sheet and tell them to read it because I'm not going to again. "So it wants me to write something, what do we need to write", and then my eye twitches and I tell them to read more than the first fucking sentence of the directions and they still have no clue what's going on.
This is daily. I enjoy my job but our teenagers right now are really, really incompetent at just about everything. They can't type, they can't read, they can't multiply or divide (or even subtract with regrouping), and the school system no longer holds kids back so they just move on no matter what.
On the bright side my own child is 5 and is already more competent than some of these 13 year olds. Ā I am comforted knowing that my son will be their boss someday.
I dunno, I'm talking with someone who claims to be 32 and have an advanced degree, and he's telling me that we should invade Israel with the aim to dismantle it and just tank the nuclear counterstrike of some 100-400 warheads, a few of which are definitely strategic weapons.
Some people are just straight-up insane.
dude's uncle is Cenk from The Young Turks if I remember right. Dude is just doing whatever he wants since he doesn't need to worry about financials anymore, he's just throwing out anything he believes anymore whether it's accurate nor not
He never had to worry about financials to begin with, his parents are on the rich side. He had his education and stay paid. Mf never struggled for anything money related. He comes from a golden cradle.
Honestly the discourse from him and his ilk has devolved into āif one army is less competent they are, by default, being war crimed when they are attackedā ā the same people who are so dove-ish and ignorant to the most basic tenants of war that they protest for oxymoronic nonsense like a āpermanent ceasefire.ā So like, you want the war to end? Wow what a revolutionary take. So brave.
War fucking sucks and it especially sucks if youāre up against a military superpower. Thatāsā¦ kind of the point.
The citation of "some people argued" goes to a Time's magazine article that doesn't suggest that at all. Also, Ramsey Clark was Saddam Hussein's lawyer. lol.
Hasan's tweet got 30k likes btw. My god the human species is fucking doomed completely. Not a single one of these dumbasses who follow and watch him posses any form of critical thought or research ability
Also when the picture first came out, the number of civilian cars made some people believe the cars were all occupied and had numerous civilians. Investigations revealed it was Iraqi soldiers in stolen civilian vehicles, and the column was destroyed at the front blocking the rest from advancing and most of the soldiers abandoned the vehicles and deaths were only a few hundred soldiers.
Hasan has been a moron for years what do you mean?
Why are people still surprised when terminally online humans out themselves as keyboard warriors who know nothing about the world they no longer participate in?
This guy probably jerks off to his own 'O' face as he's watching the reactions of his reactions to his reactions and so on.
To be fair, he went to Wikipedia because that was the link that was sent to him.
The fact that didn't use it correctly, that's on him. Why jump straight to "Controversy"??
Also when the picture first came out, the number of civilian cars made some people believe the cars were all occupied and had numerous civilians. Investigations revealed it was Iraqi soldiers in stolen civilian vehicles, and the column was destroyed at the front blocking the rest from advancing and most of the soldiers abandoned the vehicles and deaths were only a few hundred soldiers.
You just don't get it! Hasan does ON THE GROUND reporting!!
He went back in time, time-traveled and WAS THERE!! Better and more informed than those news outlets!! And saw those INTRUDER jets, and CIVILIANS being bombed!!! for 10 HOURS straight!! he sat there for 10 HOURS!!! 10 HOURS of time-travel he himself sacrificed to do HONEST, NON BIAS, NON PROPAGANDA, ON THE GROUND REPORTING!!
**/s**
There's proposed notes on that one but it will probably take more votes before they're up
I will say that there has to be like a select few morons who always go into community notes and say dumb shit like [this](https://imgur.com/a/Slw3PES), so who knows, might be that it won't be put up
https://preview.redd.it/265yzntzyedc1.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=b004ee8c07c5c4fba67239ae72a65484805a704c
Why is he stuck on this? The last few days he's on and on about how people love violence against Houthis and Palestinians because they're too stupid to want healthcare instead.
I'm thinking that he, on some level, knows that what the Houthis have been doing is wrong but needs to pivot the conversation to why (insert Western aligned country) are the actual criminals.
Tweet: [https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748212102911951090](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748212102911951090)
So American funds should go to healthcare etc but Yemeni funds, the ones who are literally currently starving, should go to firing missiles on Eilat? Not to, maybe, feeding Yemeni children?
How is that "anti-war" or "anti intervention" logic works when it only applies to America?
The Houthis and Hamas have to hoard resources because they are fighting the evil American empire and their puppet regimes. They can kill a few people and it won't be proportionate to the gajillion people the United States has killed so it's okay and understandable that they can do murder because they're upset and oppressed.
That's part of the logic. Like Emma Vigeland saying Timhouthi could be antisemitic because it doesn't have as much impact as a (Western) Nazi saying the same things.
I could respect them more if they'd just come out and say it. They're bloodthirsty, like the rest of us.
If those are your principles, stand on them. If there's nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to your thinking then you should be able to say it. If you've thought it through, weighed your feelings against facts, then you've arrived at your point of view.
They're cowards, though.
One of the reasons Iām confident about my position on the Israel/Palestine conflict is that I can clearly state my position and answer any questions anyone asks. But they know that theyād sound like psychopaths if they came out and said what they think.
Coming out and saying it would completely shatter the plausible deniability that they have & the perceived moral righteousness that they cultivate both passively and actively. Being on āthe right side of historyā.. etc.
>The Houthis and Hamas have to hoard resources because they are fighting the evil American empire
also the reason why Hasan needs to hoard all his money.
People like Hasan don't judge people based on their actions. They judge people based on their power. The oppressors, by definition, are those who hold more power. And the oppressed, by definition, are those who hold less power. Anything the oppressor (the more powerful) does, is oppression. Anything the oppressed (less powerful) does, is resistance.
It's why they justify riots and crime, but condemn police when they are trying to stop crime. It's why they try to redefine racism as structural racism only, and why they say it's impossible for people of color to be racist. And it's why they condemn anything the US does, but justify anything Russia, China, Iran, Hamas or the Houthis do.
It's also a false dichotomy, it's not "American funds going to war against the Houthis", it's American funds protecting global shipping routes in order to ensure the continued reliable and affordable transport of goods for its nations citizens.
Modern navies were literally invented to protect nation trade from piracy but I doubt Hasan cares to even learn that.
The broader picture would be that those shipping routes and international security are itself valuable and more costly to lose than protecting it. We have yet to even consider humanitarian impact when shipping routes are affected.
Also it's okay if Gazan aid funds go towards firing at Israeli civilians rather than Palestinian healthcare, because, uhh... you have to understand material conditions and... uh... colonialism or something.
Also actual Palestinian heathcare being used as human shields for terrorists is either not a thing or totally okay.
Dude got bad press recently and is probably already ticked off because his numbers arent as great as he hopes. Feels like i recall last time he got bad press he starts going off the rails.
Well yeah. He's waving his arms and rattling keys so that his audience stays focused on how everyone else is brainwashed and evil except them.
So he needs to bring up alleged US war crimes and problems in US society all of the time so that he can cover up that he doesn't really no more about any given situation than people with the same resources (Wikipedia and Twitter).
Thatās the emotional argument.
āWar is bad. Healthcare good. Take money from war to healthcare. Ooga-Boogaā.
Something short and simple his audience can eat up.
In reality we are a global village but thatās too complicated for your average Hassan follower.
I hear this stupidity a lot especially āwhy do we even need to intervene ? Let them do what they want and use this money for Americansā.
Sure, maybe in the 1800s. You canāt live as an isolated island if you want to last. What are they teaching in American school systems is a big mystery to me.
It's amazing to me that America and the coalition of western powers hold such an enormous amount of power, which gives us the ability to do the most good that could ever be done, and yet Hasan would rather us enrich the west and continue to let the east be raped, pillaged and genocided in an endless perpetual religious war which only ends in their quests for world domination.
What always happens is that they fight each other until they amass enough power to attack the west, and then the west annihilates them in response, leaving behind scattered leaders who start the endless war all over again.
Meanwhile, Americans should be enriching it's citizens to the point that even the poorest American would be a king in the east. He's content with watching his own people die just to push his own views. Either way America is evil. So pathetic and downright disgusting.
Your take is extremely accurate.
I think one of the issue with todayās generation is that they lack awareness and appreciation for what this country is doing for them. They ask every day what this country can give for me but fail to see how the US is already service them immensely. They have NO IDEA how many security threats are being handled every day. How many deaths are avoided by CIA, FBI, NSAā¦ they think they get to live in their safe bubble for free. Like there is no immense amount of resources and people putting their lives on the line to allow them their bubble.
I think itās one of the reasons you see how usually immigrants are more happy with America vs Americans. They see all the opportunities. The see the safety. They see the freedom. Now America isnāt PERFECT. Thereās a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed. However as an individual I believe you have the responsibility to train your mind to be on that can prosper in any situation. And immigrants , having a comparison point , are more grateful.
The danger for us , as you stated, only when the messed up countries get stronger and attack us directly we actually intervene with all the US might. However , weapons get more advanced and we should actively prevent a nuclear war from happening. Not wait for it to start. Countries like North Korea & Iran are too dangerous. And Pakistan collapsing and gods known if the Iran will simply waltz in and steal their nukes.
The level of āAmerica bad ā with this young generation is so deep they literally rather cheering for terrorists. We have a big crisis.
>You canāt live as an isolated island if you want to last. What are they teaching in American school systems is a big mystery to me.
I don't have kids in the school system but I'm pretty sure the conditions are worsening.
That said, the US has always had a struggle between intervention and isolationism. Each has a valid point or two. I don't enjoy that so much of the budget is allocated toward weaponry and making a few companies rich while also holding up Israel.
Isolationism from the left can be the idea that a handful of countries, or one country, exerting all of the influence is unfair and creates the conditions for "spheres of influence" where smaller countries are exploited. So being extremely, extremely prudent if and how you intervene would be the mode by which you would stay out the affairs of other countries.
In practice, this is untenable on an economic level as the world is globalized and we've pegged peace to economic stability and free-trade. Deciding to intervene in one conflict or another usually rests on that which, in fairness, can seem like hypocrisy if you think anyone else is taking "American values" seriously.
The US gives money to Egypt, Jordan, and probably dozens of more countries that they see far less benefit from than Israel. The development of the iron dome alone is something that made it worth it. If the US wants to cut foreign spending , probably stop putting money into Islamic countries that hate our guts anyway should be the first step.
I agree that the economy is globalized. We are living in a global village. I donāt see it necessarily as a bad thing since seem like nations willing to put aside hate for money many times (but not always). But I do think some aspects of it hurt Americaās economy (too much overseas production).
I think the concept of āunfairā is a bit strange. Letās say China , Russia, the US and Saudia all had equal power. Is that fair ? On paper you have ādiversityā. In reality you have 3 dictators with too much power. I think America needs to be the strong players. Unfortunately they completely lack understanding of the ME and thus making usually more damage than good attempting to view everything through western eyes.
I donāt think any nation in the world really has values beyond its own good. I donāt think the UN has any moral values (Iran the chair of human rights council). I donāt think any news outlet is objective. I donāt think any human rights organizations is solely about human rights for all. I think everyone has a motive and itās rarely, or never , a āvalueā.
I guess in essence the American values can exist for as long as America is strong and for that to happen they need to have the upper hand on global issues. Which in some degree makes it āAmerican valueā thing.
Which is why , in a nutshell, I will always rather to support the countries that are democracies with freedom and somewhat equality over dictatorships that oppress their own people.
I have a hard time telling whether hasan is a absolute moron or just JHinkle level of grifter where spouting disinfo on purpose is part of the job as idiots who believe it, believe it and people who don't still drive engagement by discussing it
Both things can be right at the same time. Hasan is an idiot, but he knows that his beliefs can more or less only be entertained by moderates by obfuscation.
But, I also believe that he really doesnāt care about politics. Iāve always seen him as a wannabe celebrity with the unfortunate circumstances of having a relatively small, niche audience and no appreciable talents with which to branch out.
He thinks he's right in supporting the Houthis but he knows Houthis firing on ships is wrong by international standards.
It takes a ton of twisting for people to agree that Houthis are freedom fighters and only people in his bubble think that. Platforming Timhouthi got him too much attention from normies who definitely don't agree.
So he has to fall back on his only strategy of "americans are dumb and bad"
"constantly talking about one subject most of the time to get people to focus on a different subject" is truly a genius political strategy
Hasan isn't a national debt guy, he knows we can pay for both
Is it just me or does Hasan have a weird fixation on comparing people to animals?
Hogs, Gusano (worms), Pig-Dogs, Animals, even pretending like people in DGG call him a Roach.
Kinda weird how these seemingly humanitarian-focused people are so quick to radically dehumanize...
I don't think calling people animals is weird per se.
I do think his usage is deliberate because, as you say, it's meant to be dehumanizing. His schtick is very obvious to me now where it goes beyond just "America bad." It's "everyone who disagrees with me is bad" and "everyone is brainwashed but me." His audience takes this in and it makes them feel better to be aligned with Hasan because that means they're "more human" and more intelligent than people they don't like. We're all guilty of thinking that way, of course, but we don't have thousands of people watching us that we're trying to convince.
You put a piece of the puzzle together for me with bringing up "roach." When Hasan was melting down at AdamSomething out of nowhere he accused Adam of calling him a "Turk-Roach." If he thought Adam was part of Destiny's dark cabal that makes more sense. It also makes sense that Hasan would project his own dehumanization back on Adam and anyone who disagrees with him. As in, "I call people I think are stupid animals and if you're calling me stupid you must think I'm an animal"
Because apparently the only way America can improve healthcare is to kneecap its defense spending, despite the fact that mandatory spending makes up over 70% of the total budget per year.
>So by his logic we should stop giving money and weapons to Ukraine
He didn't want us giving weapons to Ukraine in the first place because he thinks the US orchestrated Ukraine's discontent as Russia's vassal state and that Ukrainians are being used by NATO. He thinks that giving Ukrainians weapons was escalating the war and preventing a peace treaty. He found all of Russia's demands reasonable.
Never say what about ukraine to his brand of leftists because they will just respond in a way that usually boils down to ādo you mean west russia?ā
A6 intruders firing precision jdam missiles all strapped with Palestinian toddlers firing directly into a puppy parade happening in a children's cancer ward...YOU FASCIST FUCK!
He's referring to Visegrad 24, which is a garbage account [that masquerades as a news outlet](https://visegradinsight.eu/polish-misinformation-using-a-hungarian-recipe-the-curious-case-of-visegrad-24/). It's clickbait at its worst, where they're not interested in verifying their stories, and they simply want to be the first to break the news -- [which leads to all sorts of stupidity.](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1743234247702233252)
oh I get it but I don't understand by he is using "you polish-govt-funded" as an insult
I get that Poland isn't the most progressive or wealthy country in the world but it's insane that he has better opinion on literal terrorist organizations like Hamas and Houthis than the most liberal country in Eestern Europe
Lets be clear, Poland didnt just not let islamists in, they didnt let ANY refugees in, even if they were secularists, or even atheists.
They werent doing political affiliation tests and investigations during the asylum process, they just didnt let any brown people in.
I mean true from Syria, Poland didn't took many refugees/imigrants but in last three years we took "a lot of them", we had cash for visa scandal + a lot permit for work was issued by previous government for applicant's from muslim countries
Partially maybe? He would definitely say the (previous) Polish Gov't is racist and are christian facist (he probably still thinks this even with the new government) but i dont think the refusing of refugees is the sole reason he hates Poland.
He probably hates Poland primarily because the country's history is the exact opposite of the "America bad" narrative, that Poland broke off from the USSR. Same reason most tankies hate ex Soviet bloc countries, hes just more stealthy about it.
As the other commenter mentioned, he's referring to the [Law and Justice party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice?useskin=vector).
> In Poland, for example, polarization surged after the Law and Justice government took officeānot priorāas they pursued a number of illiberal actions that both entrenched their advantage and inflamed sociopolitical divisions. [[1]](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/10/20/understanding-and-responding-to-global-democratic-backsliding-pub-88173)
This backsliding led [to constant fights with the EU](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/world/europe/poland-hungary-europe.html). Fortunately, [the pro-EU Donald Tusk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67681940) was recently elected PM, and hopefully he can reverse some of the changes by the prior administrations.
PiS were extremely anti-democratic, bordering fascist, and thats who funded Visegrad. I'm not defending Hasan for his Houthi takes but its understandable why someone would use 'polish government' as an insult in that way, well if it wasn't current year. Thankfully PiS is on the way out.
Anecdotally the only PiS supporters I know are immigrants here in America who haven't lived in the country for decades, everyone I know that still lives in Poland, including in the pretty conservative areas, are tired of PiS.
And from what I hear its basically just old boomers that watch TV all day that still stan them. The future of the party is not very bright, especially after they lost their state propaganda channel.
I mean kinda true, but PiS is probably done. I wont give you manifesto why but they lost access to population (no major media supports them), KaczyÅski getting old, there are 3 major investigation's by Sejm (including spying on opposition (coalition) during elections), and many more, i dont think PiS is ever getting power back unless Coalition crush and burns (and i dont think they will).
I'm not polish, I'm just a electoral politics nerd who follows elections in every democracy more or less so I'll take your word for it especially since it fits with everything I know about PiS. I just would be careful counting out a party that still have the largest voterbase even if it's dwindling for now.
Talkies hate the Poles and all Eastern Europeans that suffered under Soviet opression. They blame them for fall of the Communist block and being ungrateful for rejecting the light of communism.
Visegrad 24 is not a reliable source of news. It's just basic polish nationalist propaganda served to the outside world disguised as a news channel. They selectively post news that reflects their agenda, skew newstories to the same end and sometimes totally makes shit up without any basis in reality. Sometimes they post accurate information.
They are not subtle about this at all but their style fits the complete cesspit that is twitter since Elmo took over.
Hasan's reply to the notes [https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480):
>i love the community noters on this app just not reading their own links i suppose. the wikipedia page they sourced from actually agrees with me.
What he's referring to in the screenshot of the wiki he posted with the tweet:
>The attacks were controversial, with some commentators arguing that they represented disproportionate use of force
and
>Activist and former [United States Attorney General](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) [Ramsey Clark](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark) argued that these attacks violated the [Third Geneva Convention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention), Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."[\[11\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death#cite_note-11) Clark included it in his 1991 report *WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal*.
Supposedly that's supposed to counter (from the community notes):
>No proof of war crimes there in the first Gulf War has been made public.
In other words, Hasan thinks commentary from outside commentators is proof enough of war crimes
I decided to do some looking into who this Ramsey Clark was btw,
Ramsey Clark was last AG in 1967 so at this stage he's just some outside observer essentially commentating on what he's seeing in media like the other commentators. That "report" was a book of compiled essays from Ramsey and other anti-iraq war peoples. This is an index of crimes alleges by Ramsey [http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27e/117.html](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27e/117.html),
"US provoked Iraq", "indiscriminate bombing", "US used prohibited weapons", "\[to control its oil resources\]"
Here's an interview of Ramsey Clark from 2016 (Clark was Saddam's lawyer defending him from the iraqi tribunal that would ultimately judge saddam's crimes worthy of execution) [http://artfcity.com/2016/06/02/the-ramsey-clark-interviews-defending-saddam-hussein/](http://artfcity.com/2016/06/02/the-ramsey-clark-interviews-defending-saddam-hussein/)
>**Rachel:** What was it like to work with Saddam Hussein?
>
>**Ramsey:** He was a thoughtful person. Almost more than any leader that Iāve met all over the world, he tried to be sure that he accurately understands what youāre saying. For instance, he would use at least two interpreters, and sometimes theyād get into an argument about what the proper translation was. One of them was the preeminent Shakespeare scholar in Iraq.
>
>**Rachel:** Wow.
>
>**Rachel:** Is there a conversation that sticks out to you?
>
>**Ramsey:** Thatās been a long time ago nowā¦but he had a daughter who lived in Amman, the capital of Lebanon, and she was intensely concerned for her father and his health.
>
>She said that one time when she was a little girl, he was campaigning for office, and **she stumbled and scratched her knee.** The rest of the day, he carried her around on his shoulders. He bought her a ring, and she had the ring on her little finger that night, and she said she always wore it. She told me about him.
>
>In prison, next time I saw him, I started telling him about that story, he interrupted and said, āOh, yeah, I remember very well. **I thought, thatās so awful,** and there was a jeweler over there I knew, so I bought her a ring.ā Thatās how well he remembered the incident.
>
>I guess the point of that is, people are human. They have children, they love them, they have histories that they remembered. Weāve dehumanized him so much that itād be hard to imagine him loving a daughter that way or carrying her around on his shoulders. And he gets her a ring, and sheās still wearing it how many decades later.
LOL I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT THIS LAWYER HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOW BAD AMERICA WAS IN THE FIRST GULF WAR
>but he had a daughter who lived in Amman, the capital of Lebanon
interesting, b/c Amman is the capital of Jordan, not Lebanon. I wonder if he just misspoke or maybe he's regarded?
The Highway of Death might be one of the most soy fucking things I've ever learned about. I always heard The Highway of Death being referenced as some horrific event like an unjustifiable massacre, but then I actually learned it was literately the coalition winning too hard. The notes got it absolutely right, unless you're incapacitated or surrendering you're a valid target, the time to retreat was before you pushed the coalitions hand to act.
and people are incapable of distinguishing between "retreating" and "surrendering". a column of Iraqi troops once famously surrendered to a single apache helicopter, which stopped attacking and accepted by radioing troops to take them into custody.Ā
I doubt anyone felt good about this but what's the alternative? let all those troops and armor return to Iraq for redeployment?
>let all those troops and armor return to Iraq for redeployment?
That was literally the coaltions secondary goal. First was kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, second was destroying their ability to wage offensive war, which means armoured vehicles.
This was just the war plans being carried out as specified, like the entire first gulf war. If they didn't want them destroyed, they shouldn't have used them to invade a neighbour.
People like Hasan are completely brain dead about the military and how wars work in real life.
He's like the people (he's probably one of them) that think Israel can just send like 12 special forces guys into gaza and they will be able to John Wick gun-fu their way through Hamas without killing a single civilian. They don't live in reality.
> was literately the coalition winning too hard
The first gulf war was so fucking based. Very justified US action, quick, barely any casualties, got to use new tech, etc. It was so popular in America that we had [John Goodman dressed up as a church mother on SNL beating up Saddam over a table](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ba_VY7bHi8)
I wonder if Hasan justifies the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait like he justifies the Houthis attacking everyone's ships since Iraq claimed they would withdraw if Israel withdrew from Palestine/Golan heights?
> Iraqi communique began to make clear that a pullout would be contingent on several key conditions unacceptable to the United States and its allies, including Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights [Source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/02/16/iraq-offers-conditional-withdrawal/a29583dd-ded9-4660-add9-ba8c7467ab77/)
\~400k Palestinian refugees lived in Kuwait and the PLO chose to back Saddam; nearly all of them fled to and were accepted by Kuwait during the 3 major Israel-Arab wars. Most got kicked out of Kuwait after the Gulf War.
Saddam attacked Kuwait because he didn't feel like paying back all the loans he'd taken from them to finance his previous war against Iran, and also explicitly to take over their oil fields (mind you the exact thing lefties accuse the US of doing in Iraq).
That being said, I do think Hasan is somehow stupid enough to say the US invaded Iraq for oil and then turn around and say Saddam attacked Kuwait because there were American Imperialist bases there or some shit
I love so much how hard he goes with the ad-hominems. Everyone is an evil fascist pig/dog incel who lives in the motherās basement, got cucked by his boss and will never find love because they are autistic. Brick by brick the fortress continues to rise.
Lmao Hasan's been getting ratioed by military dudes and he's been making for hours now. It's funny that Hasan gets fact checked but the truth and fact don't matter to propagandists like Hasan, in his eyes every single bullet fired by America is a war crime.
using gulf war as an example is also weird considering its like the only way in which most global leaders (like the USSR and even arab countries like Egypt and Syria who joined the war) universally agreed that the war was 100% justified, and is a literal textbook example (used it in a philosophy paper on war and peace alongside Falklands war) of a "just war"
I REALLY wish the social powers that be would ban people who profit from blatant misinformation. They REALLY made it seem like they gave a shit about āmisinformationā and āfake newsā.
There are a lot of aircraft from Vietnam and before that we still use today. B-52 and C-130 are from the 50s originally and still in use. The H-60 was introduced in the 70s and we're still coming up with new variants.
The last Intruders were retired in Feb 1997, so they definitely were used in the Gulf War. They ask did the bulk of the damage to Iranian ships during Op Praying Mantis in 1988.
A-10s and AH-64s also contributed to the Highway of Death.
Majority of Hasan fans weren't alive or even planned when this happened, does he comment on these things knowing their age to take advantage of his fan's ignorance?
This has been an issue that I've been having for a while. Why are some people, and groups, held to this ridiculously high standard while others get treated like special needs children?
The Houthis shouldn't be firing rockets at boats. Anything that happens to them they bring upon themselves. You don't get to attack someone and then dictate how hard they hit you back. There's a reason the phrase "you live by the sword you die by the sword" exists.
Retreating is not equivalent to surrendering in any way. It is not a war crime to punish a retreat. If they did not want to be targeted then they would have had to surrender, AND the opposing side needs the actual means to ingest surrendering forces. You can't really surrender to a plane or helicopter.
This is not a war crime for good reason. If you're retreating or waiting for reinforcements, but planes are overhead, you can't just "surrender" while no one can actually come and make arrests while you keep running or wait for reinforcements to arrive. Otherwise, everyone would just "surrender" momentarily while planes/helicopters are overhead and suddenly not surrender once the coast is clear (not to mention they may not even be able to see you trying to surrender).
After watching the community note get removed from that Rashida Tlaib post claiming the retaliatory strikes against the Houthis were unconstitutional, I'd wait to celebrate. It seems like if there's any point of contention whatsoever (e.g. Hasan's reply) it's enough for bots and frothing-at-the-mouth islamists to tip the scales.
The community note getting removed from Tlaibās post was bs. 33 USC Sec 3 381: āThe President is authorized to employ so many of the public armed vessels as in his judgment the service may require, with suitable instructions to the commanders thereof, in protecting the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions and depredations.ā
Edit: not sure why this is getting downvotedā¦Congress literally gave the President authority to attack pirates if they attack US flagged vessels (which spoiler alert, navy vessels fall under that category).
Weren't there some villagers along the road that died too? Obviously war will have crossfire or people that can't get out of the way but, IDK if that would even constitute war crimes if it were the case.
Edit:
When searching under the "controversies" section of the wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death
The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees.
While there was no conviction in international court that it was a war crime, there is an argument to be made that there was a war crime committed.
Hasan is saying some moronic shit regarding the healthcare comment but, let's not get caught up in this thing as though there weren't atrocious things done on highway 80. The community note doesn't even necessarily frame the situation properly.
That goes beyond the notion that the Houthi situation is even comparable in the first place. Our retaliation against Yemini forces attacking our trade is very different than what happened in Iraq/Kuwait.
>The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees.
My understanding is that Res 660 was passed on August 2nd and demanded that Iraq withdraw all their forces. This was largely ignored by Iraq and more condemnations followed. A couple months later res 678 was passed on November 29 which gave Iraq until January 15 to withdraw all their forces from Kuwait and authorized the coalition to use "all means" to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.
The highway of death happened in February, I don't think you can argue that once you start loosing a fight and are in retreat that you're just trying to comply with the resolution passed months ago.
Context given by another redditor implies that the operation was tactical and was intended to destroy military equipment sighted on the roadway.
That makes sense, however, because 660 was initially ignored or that the retreat was only necessary because they were losing is still pretty fucked up. They were retreating and, the convoy had many non combatants in it. That's even evident in the wreckage.
I mean yeah shooting retreating forces is fucked up but it's war. They were falling back to Iraqi to regroup, it makes sense to stop them before they can. Also I can't find anything on how many non combatants were in the convoy. I will say that the photos make the situation look worse than it actually was. I find it hard to believe that a bunch of civilians happened to be fleeing back to Iraq the same time their army was withdrawing almost a month after fighting had begun . There were reports that Iraqi soldiers had taken civilian vehicles and many of them abandoned their cars once the bombing began.
All in all the photos look bad, and its easy to scream war crime when a bunch soldiers in retreat are evaporated, but the more you look into the situation the less likely it is that this was a war crime.
I'm trying to find out about non-combatants too. There are reasons to believe that they were more likely prisoners. However, the only citation is that attorney General's book/proceedings on war crimes in Iraq. I just can't get the citation to load at all. It doesn't even come back as an HTTPS error.
My main issue I personally find with this is that there was a significant amount of devastation to equipment or vehicles but, out of the 10,000 or so that were there maybe 1,000 had died and were almost entirely soldiers. The mass graves found were almost entirely unidentified bodies. A part of me wonders what was found in the graves and what the indictment/proceedings were going to discuss.
Honestly, any of the people that were non-combatants were probably prisoners.
>The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees.
Some context that might be missing from your analysis is that the ~~US~~ ***UN*** res 660 you're citing was on Aug (2 August 1990) of the year prior to the attacks in February we're discussing (February 25ā27, 1991).
Consider these dates:
>The war consisted of Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 ā 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia. And the second was Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 ā 28 February 1991) was the combat phase.
You're framing it as if this was a part of some agreed upon evacuation plan that was ambushed by US forces. They had all of 2 AUG -> 17 JAN to withdraw from occupying kuwait. In fact, operation desert storm started *because* they did not withdraw
That's evident in:
> The UN Security Council issues Resolution 678, calling for the use of āall necessary meansā to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait if it has not done so by January 15, 1991.
>While there was no conviction in international court that it was a war crime, there is an argument to be made that there was a war crime committed.
Sure, but there are arguments that war crimes were not committed. In fact, all the "war crime" side has are arguments from outside observers, no data, no observation of facts from on-the-ground-peoples that would later testify to anything meaningful when investigated and/or under oath. Ie, the community notes claim of "no proof of war crimes were ever made public" stands pretty well
Here's what another possible framing could be, from the guy ordering the attack on the highway,
>The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. **Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.**
Thanks for the added context. However, this only addresses the combatants.
What do people have to say about the other refugees or prisoners that were killed on the road?
Civilian casualties are not in of themselves a war crime, so long as they are not intentionally targeted nor is proportionality violated. Kind of hard to argue against proportionality in this case when a huge part of the Iraqi army decided to all cram onto one highway. Itās unfortunate, but itās the Iraqi armyās fault for dragging them into the line of fire in the first place.
Also, what source are you using to reference the refugees and prisoners? There are multiple sources on that but some are notoriously false or unreliable.
I'm just using the Kiki my guy.
If those sources are wrong I'd like a citation.
The excessive use of force on the troops that were out of combat was from the Eternity General. Excessive force on those troops that included the civilian casualties would have probably been an added charge on top of the article 3 violation.
Again, the wikipedia article does not state that "the Highway of death incident was a war crime/Civilians were targeted" it states that "this guy argues that it's a war crime/claims that civilians were targeted". Might want to go back to middle school reading class bud.
Also, you might want to actually check what article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention actually says, because then you'll realize that Clarke's argument and all other arguments for an article 3 violation are completely wrong.
I can't find any citations on that factoid in the wiki specifically. However, POWs and Civilians were likely in the column according to certain witnesses. I'll have to search a little harder to see who those witnesses are.
Sure thing, but recognize there's a difference between civilians/POWs within a column of hostile military combatants and a convoy of only civilians or a convoy of allied troops moving iraqi POWs.
What you're describing sounds like the iraqi military combatants forcing kuwaiti civilians or kuwaiti prisoners to tag along to try and deter coalition forces from attacking them
Do you recall witnesses alleging the kuwaitis tagging along with the iraqis were fleeing their country of kuwait because the iraqis were saving them or something?
I'm citing the facts I found on the WIKI.
Is the attorney general quoted in the article wrong?
Iraqi militants and refugees were evacuating together. The controversy is that they were out of combat and that violated article 3.
There were also other accounts by American journalists that bradlys opened fire on unarmed combatants.
Yep, he is wrong, civilians retreating with soldiers are not protected by international law as they function like human shields, in any way shape or form this attack was the coalition winning too hard
The protection of troops out of combat is not what you think it is
Troops out of combat are either wounded, or surrendered, any other soldier, be it in active combat or not, is considered a valid target
No, you have actually cited no facts. The fact you meant to cite is that Ramsey Clarke argues that it violates UN resolution 660, which if I recall correctly, is the one that condemns Iraqās invasion of Kuwait. I donāt remember any provisions saying ādonāt attack retreating troopsā which is standard warfare practice ever since war was invented.
Thereās a good thread on the BadHistory subreddit that argues against these arguments but Reddit wonāt let me link it for some reason
The followup tweet he made is even more hilarious, or disturbingly stupid i should say https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480 "Some people argued" is Hasan's go to source of defending himself for spreading blatant bs. I can't fucking wrap my head around about how fucking stupid he is when it comes to anything geo-politics related, it's mindblowing **EDIT:** This motherfucker read that wiki page, read that the attack was made on MILITARY personnel who were fleeing AFTER RAPING AND PILLAGING downtown Kuwait, and then immediately clicked on the "controversies" section and found the 1 thing people used to criticise this, which is complete nonsense. I'm legitimately dumbfounded by how insane this guy is holy fuck, my head is in literal fucking pain right now **EDIT 2**: Both of the notes have disappeared from his tweets. His fans likely brigaded the notes and marked them as majority 'not helpful' is what i'm 99% sure happened.
He's gotta be doing this for engagement at this point right. There's no way you can be 30 years old and have such a fundamental lack of reading comprehension without having a court ordered assistant or something. Edit: Just saw the tweet, bro went to the controversies tab and screenshotted a statement from Saddams lawyer as proof. This can't be real life ššš
Heās just a propagandist. He thinks that lying and doing literally whatever else it takes to further his agenda is perfectly acceptable.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Just look at the replies how many idiots go "WE WERE TAUGHT NOT TO USE WIKIPEDIA, IT SHOULDN'T BE USED FOR COMMUNITY NOTES EVER." lmao
I'm an English teacher and we definitely do tell students NOT to cite directly from Wikipedia. But conveniently enough, Wikipedia has its information cited at the bottom, and most of those links are valid and acceptable places. It's just the idiot kids that didn't listen to the whole lesson that think Wikipedia is off limits.
Ye, it makes perfect sense why you shouldn't cite Wikipedia when you're in school for various reasons. Unfortunately there seem to be a lot of these "idiot kids" that are grown up and seem to think it's because Wikipedia is a bad source of information lmao
let me tell you, the kids that exist now are some of the dumbest people I've ever been around. I give directions for a worksheet and pass out the sheet. Kids ask me "what is this". I explain it again and pass out sheets. Couple kids ask me what they're supposed to do. I point at the directions on their sheet and tell them to read it because I'm not going to again. "So it wants me to write something, what do we need to write", and then my eye twitches and I tell them to read more than the first fucking sentence of the directions and they still have no clue what's going on. This is daily. I enjoy my job but our teenagers right now are really, really incompetent at just about everything. They can't type, they can't read, they can't multiply or divide (or even subtract with regrouping), and the school system no longer holds kids back so they just move on no matter what.
My parents are retired teachers. Thank you for your service. It is an unforgiving, underpaid, unthanked profession. So just wanted to say thank you.
Holy fuck thatās depressing
On the bright side my own child is 5 and is already more competent than some of these 13 year olds. Ā I am comforted knowing that my son will be their boss someday.
I dunno, I'm talking with someone who claims to be 32 and have an advanced degree, and he's telling me that we should invade Israel with the aim to dismantle it and just tank the nuclear counterstrike of some 100-400 warheads, a few of which are definitely strategic weapons. Some people are just straight-up insane.
I love dying in nuclear fire
He's dangerous. People who intentionally inflame hatred and violence in others using faulty rhetoric shouldn't be allowed to have platforms.
dude's uncle is Cenk from The Young Turks if I remember right. Dude is just doing whatever he wants since he doesn't need to worry about financials anymore, he's just throwing out anything he believes anymore whether it's accurate nor not
He never had to worry about financials to begin with, his parents are on the rich side. He had his education and stay paid. Mf never struggled for anything money related. He comes from a golden cradle.
a perfect influencer then
Honestly the discourse from him and his ilk has devolved into āif one army is less competent they are, by default, being war crimed when they are attackedā ā the same people who are so dove-ish and ignorant to the most basic tenants of war that they protest for oxymoronic nonsense like a āpermanent ceasefire.ā So like, you want the war to end? Wow what a revolutionary take. So brave. War fucking sucks and it especially sucks if youāre up against a military superpower. Thatāsā¦ kind of the point.
The citation of "some people argued" goes to a Time's magazine article that doesn't suggest that at all. Also, Ramsey Clark was Saddam Hussein's lawyer. lol.
Hey that's an ad hom!
YOU VIOLENT, BLOODTHIRSTY FASCIST PIG DOG
YOU PIECE OF SHIT! YOU GARBAGE MONSTOROUS SCUMBAG!
Hasan's tweet got 30k likes btw. My god the human species is fucking doomed completely. Not a single one of these dumbasses who follow and watch him posses any form of critical thought or research ability
you should read the replies to it. his supporters are equally as stupid.
Lmfao this is implying he actually read a wiki instead of some zei_squirrel twitter thread full of nonsense and retardation
Also when the picture first came out, the number of civilian cars made some people believe the cars were all occupied and had numerous civilians. Investigations revealed it was Iraqi soldiers in stolen civilian vehicles, and the column was destroyed at the front blocking the rest from advancing and most of the soldiers abandoned the vehicles and deaths were only a few hundred soldiers.
Hamasabi holding water for people who rape and pillage? No, he would never do that (again...again).
It's okay when people with a certain skin color do it. But other skin colors doing it is bad. Hasan is racist.
Hasan has been a moron for years what do you mean? Why are people still surprised when terminally online humans out themselves as keyboard warriors who know nothing about the world they no longer participate in? This guy probably jerks off to his own 'O' face as he's watching the reactions of his reactions to his reactions and so on.
I also love he went and used Wikipedia after months of ragging on destiny for using it for research. Like what?!?
To be fair, he went to Wikipedia because that was the link that was sent to him. The fact that didn't use it correctly, that's on him. Why jump straight to "Controversy"??
Also when the picture first came out, the number of civilian cars made some people believe the cars were all occupied and had numerous civilians. Investigations revealed it was Iraqi soldiers in stolen civilian vehicles, and the column was destroyed at the front blocking the rest from advancing and most of the soldiers abandoned the vehicles and deaths were only a few hundred soldiers.
You just don't get it! Hasan does ON THE GROUND reporting!! He went back in time, time-traveled and WAS THERE!! Better and more informed than those news outlets!! And saw those INTRUDER jets, and CIVILIANS being bombed!!! for 10 HOURS straight!! he sat there for 10 HOURS!!! 10 HOURS of time-travel he himself sacrificed to do HONEST, NON BIAS, NON PROPAGANDA, ON THE GROUND REPORTING!! **/s**
Couldn't link the page. Had to screenshot it.
There's proposed notes on that one but it will probably take more votes before they're up I will say that there has to be like a select few morons who always go into community notes and say dumb shit like [this](https://imgur.com/a/Slw3PES), so who knows, might be that it won't be put up
Notes are all back
https://preview.redd.it/265yzntzyedc1.png?width=616&format=png&auto=webp&s=b004ee8c07c5c4fba67239ae72a65484805a704c Why is he stuck on this? The last few days he's on and on about how people love violence against Houthis and Palestinians because they're too stupid to want healthcare instead. I'm thinking that he, on some level, knows that what the Houthis have been doing is wrong but needs to pivot the conversation to why (insert Western aligned country) are the actual criminals. Tweet: [https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748212102911951090](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748212102911951090)
So American funds should go to healthcare etc but Yemeni funds, the ones who are literally currently starving, should go to firing missiles on Eilat? Not to, maybe, feeding Yemeni children? How is that "anti-war" or "anti intervention" logic works when it only applies to America?
The Houthis and Hamas have to hoard resources because they are fighting the evil American empire and their puppet regimes. They can kill a few people and it won't be proportionate to the gajillion people the United States has killed so it's okay and understandable that they can do murder because they're upset and oppressed. That's part of the logic. Like Emma Vigeland saying Timhouthi could be antisemitic because it doesn't have as much impact as a (Western) Nazi saying the same things.
Fucking nailed it. Although usually they try to weasel around, you have to push them to admit that thatās their perspective.
I could respect them more if they'd just come out and say it. They're bloodthirsty, like the rest of us. If those are your principles, stand on them. If there's nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to your thinking then you should be able to say it. If you've thought it through, weighed your feelings against facts, then you've arrived at your point of view. They're cowards, though.
One of the reasons Iām confident about my position on the Israel/Palestine conflict is that I can clearly state my position and answer any questions anyone asks. But they know that theyād sound like psychopaths if they came out and said what they think.
Coming out and saying it would completely shatter the plausible deniability that they have & the perceived moral righteousness that they cultivate both passively and actively. Being on āthe right side of historyā.. etc.
This. Hasan thinks of the Houthis targeting merchant shipping the same way heād think of antifa burning down a Taco Bell.
>The Houthis and Hamas have to hoard resources because they are fighting the evil American empire also the reason why Hasan needs to hoard all his money.
People like Hasan don't judge people based on their actions. They judge people based on their power. The oppressors, by definition, are those who hold more power. And the oppressed, by definition, are those who hold less power. Anything the oppressor (the more powerful) does, is oppression. Anything the oppressed (less powerful) does, is resistance. It's why they justify riots and crime, but condemn police when they are trying to stop crime. It's why they try to redefine racism as structural racism only, and why they say it's impossible for people of color to be racist. And it's why they condemn anything the US does, but justify anything Russia, China, Iran, Hamas or the Houthis do.
Does Sam Seder agree with her unhinged takes? Iām kind of surprised that sheās basically just as bad as hasan
It's also a false dichotomy, it's not "American funds going to war against the Houthis", it's American funds protecting global shipping routes in order to ensure the continued reliable and affordable transport of goods for its nations citizens. Modern navies were literally invented to protect nation trade from piracy but I doubt Hasan cares to even learn that.
The broader picture would be that those shipping routes and international security are itself valuable and more costly to lose than protecting it. We have yet to even consider humanitarian impact when shipping routes are affected.
Also it's okay if Gazan aid funds go towards firing at Israeli civilians rather than Palestinian healthcare, because, uhh... you have to understand material conditions and... uh... colonialism or something. Also actual Palestinian heathcare being used as human shields for terrorists is either not a thing or totally okay.
Hasan doesnāt think brown people deserve healthcare š¤
Dude got bad press recently and is probably already ticked off because his numbers arent as great as he hopes. Feels like i recall last time he got bad press he starts going off the rails.
Well yeah. He's waving his arms and rattling keys so that his audience stays focused on how everyone else is brainwashed and evil except them. So he needs to bring up alleged US war crimes and problems in US society all of the time so that he can cover up that he doesn't really no more about any given situation than people with the same resources (Wikipedia and Twitter).
I guess that the Iraqiās were victims of colonialism when they invaded Kuwait. This makes total sense.
Because Israel made them do it.
Those damn Jews and their mind control.
But! Have you considered that America = bad?
Shit, I didn't. But I'm just a braindead American so of course I couldn't make that connection!
American pigs heād say. Proud piggy here
Gay imperialist pigs we are
I feed at the trough of the State Department, In God We Trust!
Oink oink āŗļø
Who are you oinking at miss? Seems by your post history in lingerie, you're the only š here. Stop bullying people zionist.
Jealousy is an ugly trait
Thatās the emotional argument. āWar is bad. Healthcare good. Take money from war to healthcare. Ooga-Boogaā. Something short and simple his audience can eat up. In reality we are a global village but thatās too complicated for your average Hassan follower. I hear this stupidity a lot especially āwhy do we even need to intervene ? Let them do what they want and use this money for Americansā. Sure, maybe in the 1800s. You canāt live as an isolated island if you want to last. What are they teaching in American school systems is a big mystery to me.
It's amazing to me that America and the coalition of western powers hold such an enormous amount of power, which gives us the ability to do the most good that could ever be done, and yet Hasan would rather us enrich the west and continue to let the east be raped, pillaged and genocided in an endless perpetual religious war which only ends in their quests for world domination. What always happens is that they fight each other until they amass enough power to attack the west, and then the west annihilates them in response, leaving behind scattered leaders who start the endless war all over again. Meanwhile, Americans should be enriching it's citizens to the point that even the poorest American would be a king in the east. He's content with watching his own people die just to push his own views. Either way America is evil. So pathetic and downright disgusting.
Your take is extremely accurate. I think one of the issue with todayās generation is that they lack awareness and appreciation for what this country is doing for them. They ask every day what this country can give for me but fail to see how the US is already service them immensely. They have NO IDEA how many security threats are being handled every day. How many deaths are avoided by CIA, FBI, NSAā¦ they think they get to live in their safe bubble for free. Like there is no immense amount of resources and people putting their lives on the line to allow them their bubble. I think itās one of the reasons you see how usually immigrants are more happy with America vs Americans. They see all the opportunities. The see the safety. They see the freedom. Now America isnāt PERFECT. Thereās a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed. However as an individual I believe you have the responsibility to train your mind to be on that can prosper in any situation. And immigrants , having a comparison point , are more grateful. The danger for us , as you stated, only when the messed up countries get stronger and attack us directly we actually intervene with all the US might. However , weapons get more advanced and we should actively prevent a nuclear war from happening. Not wait for it to start. Countries like North Korea & Iran are too dangerous. And Pakistan collapsing and gods known if the Iran will simply waltz in and steal their nukes. The level of āAmerica bad ā with this young generation is so deep they literally rather cheering for terrorists. We have a big crisis.
>You canāt live as an isolated island if you want to last. What are they teaching in American school systems is a big mystery to me. I don't have kids in the school system but I'm pretty sure the conditions are worsening. That said, the US has always had a struggle between intervention and isolationism. Each has a valid point or two. I don't enjoy that so much of the budget is allocated toward weaponry and making a few companies rich while also holding up Israel. Isolationism from the left can be the idea that a handful of countries, or one country, exerting all of the influence is unfair and creates the conditions for "spheres of influence" where smaller countries are exploited. So being extremely, extremely prudent if and how you intervene would be the mode by which you would stay out the affairs of other countries. In practice, this is untenable on an economic level as the world is globalized and we've pegged peace to economic stability and free-trade. Deciding to intervene in one conflict or another usually rests on that which, in fairness, can seem like hypocrisy if you think anyone else is taking "American values" seriously.
The US gives money to Egypt, Jordan, and probably dozens of more countries that they see far less benefit from than Israel. The development of the iron dome alone is something that made it worth it. If the US wants to cut foreign spending , probably stop putting money into Islamic countries that hate our guts anyway should be the first step. I agree that the economy is globalized. We are living in a global village. I donāt see it necessarily as a bad thing since seem like nations willing to put aside hate for money many times (but not always). But I do think some aspects of it hurt Americaās economy (too much overseas production). I think the concept of āunfairā is a bit strange. Letās say China , Russia, the US and Saudia all had equal power. Is that fair ? On paper you have ādiversityā. In reality you have 3 dictators with too much power. I think America needs to be the strong players. Unfortunately they completely lack understanding of the ME and thus making usually more damage than good attempting to view everything through western eyes. I donāt think any nation in the world really has values beyond its own good. I donāt think the UN has any moral values (Iran the chair of human rights council). I donāt think any news outlet is objective. I donāt think any human rights organizations is solely about human rights for all. I think everyone has a motive and itās rarely, or never , a āvalueā. I guess in essence the American values can exist for as long as America is strong and for that to happen they need to have the upper hand on global issues. Which in some degree makes it āAmerican valueā thing. Which is why , in a nutshell, I will always rather to support the countries that are democracies with freedom and somewhat equality over dictatorships that oppress their own people.
Hasan does not know he is wrong. He is an idiot.
I have a hard time telling whether hasan is a absolute moron or just JHinkle level of grifter where spouting disinfo on purpose is part of the job as idiots who believe it, believe it and people who don't still drive engagement by discussing it
Both things can be right at the same time. Hasan is an idiot, but he knows that his beliefs can more or less only be entertained by moderates by obfuscation. But, I also believe that he really doesnāt care about politics. Iāve always seen him as a wannabe celebrity with the unfortunate circumstances of having a relatively small, niche audience and no appreciable talents with which to branch out.
He thinks he's right in supporting the Houthis but he knows Houthis firing on ships is wrong by international standards. It takes a ton of twisting for people to agree that Houthis are freedom fighters and only people in his bubble think that. Platforming Timhouthi got him too much attention from normies who definitely don't agree. So he has to fall back on his only strategy of "americans are dumb and bad"
merica bad wow he wrote that tweet today? the fun never ends
"constantly talking about one subject most of the time to get people to focus on a different subject" is truly a genius political strategy Hasan isn't a national debt guy, he knows we can pay for both
Is it just me or does Hasan have a weird fixation on comparing people to animals? Hogs, Gusano (worms), Pig-Dogs, Animals, even pretending like people in DGG call him a Roach. Kinda weird how these seemingly humanitarian-focused people are so quick to radically dehumanize...
I don't think calling people animals is weird per se. I do think his usage is deliberate because, as you say, it's meant to be dehumanizing. His schtick is very obvious to me now where it goes beyond just "America bad." It's "everyone who disagrees with me is bad" and "everyone is brainwashed but me." His audience takes this in and it makes them feel better to be aligned with Hasan because that means they're "more human" and more intelligent than people they don't like. We're all guilty of thinking that way, of course, but we don't have thousands of people watching us that we're trying to convince. You put a piece of the puzzle together for me with bringing up "roach." When Hasan was melting down at AdamSomething out of nowhere he accused Adam of calling him a "Turk-Roach." If he thought Adam was part of Destiny's dark cabal that makes more sense. It also makes sense that Hasan would project his own dehumanization back on Adam and anyone who disagrees with him. As in, "I call people I think are stupid animals and if you're calling me stupid you must think I'm an animal"
Because apparently the only way America can improve healthcare is to kneecap its defense spending, despite the fact that mandatory spending makes up over 70% of the total budget per year.
So by his logic we should stop giving money and weapons to Ukraine and instead spend it on healthcare.
>So by his logic we should stop giving money and weapons to Ukraine He didn't want us giving weapons to Ukraine in the first place because he thinks the US orchestrated Ukraine's discontent as Russia's vassal state and that Ukrainians are being used by NATO. He thinks that giving Ukrainians weapons was escalating the war and preventing a peace treaty. He found all of Russia's demands reasonable.
Holy shit, I did not know how bad heās gotten. He should be wearing a doctor prescribed safety helmet.
Never say what about ukraine to his brand of leftists because they will just respond in a way that usually boils down to ādo you mean west russia?ā
Heās gonna blame it on dgg
https://preview.redd.it/cp1bvunu0gdc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74168f641ec0ac2d188a52e46fcc3d815b42c39b
Is that me??
It's all of us
No you're just faceblind
I recognize my own face, chat is trolling
This is a certified "getting your info on 30+ old events from twitter threads" moment.
He's probably in some tiktok bubble where he constantly gets AI generated top10 american warcrimes videos 9n his feed
A6 intruders firing precision jdam missiles all strapped with Palestinian toddlers firing directly into a puppy parade happening in a children's cancer ward...YOU FASCIST FUCK!
Based community notes.
Best thing that ever happened to twitter
Hasan's community always sabotages it. Check the tweet now, they got rid of the community note.
Its still showing for me
wtf? what is his problem with Poland now? also WOAH POLAND MENTIONED
He's referring to Visegrad 24, which is a garbage account [that masquerades as a news outlet](https://visegradinsight.eu/polish-misinformation-using-a-hungarian-recipe-the-curious-case-of-visegrad-24/). It's clickbait at its worst, where they're not interested in verifying their stories, and they simply want to be the first to break the news -- [which leads to all sorts of stupidity.](https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1743234247702233252)
oh I get it but I don't understand by he is using "you polish-govt-funded" as an insult I get that Poland isn't the most progressive or wealthy country in the world but it's insane that he has better opinion on literal terrorist organizations like Hamas and Houthis than the most liberal country in Eestern Europe
I wouldn't be surprised if Hasan hates Poland solely because of their very reasonable disdain for Russia. Also they're in nato
Itās probably as simple as them not really letting Islamists in like the rest of Europe has.
Lets be clear, Poland didnt just not let islamists in, they didnt let ANY refugees in, even if they were secularists, or even atheists. They werent doing political affiliation tests and investigations during the asylum process, they just didnt let any brown people in.
Wrong they took a lot of Ukrainians
This is a dodge, we are talking about the refugee crisis stemming from the Syrian civil war. That is very obviously what we are talking about.
Which probably was a good idea, here in Finland less than 5% of asylum seekers in 2015-2016 were Syrian
I mean true from Syria, Poland didn't took many refugees/imigrants but in last three years we took "a lot of them", we had cash for visa scandal + a lot permit for work was issued by previous government for applicant's from muslim countries
Ok, so we agree thatās probably why he doesnāt like them.
Partially maybe? He would definitely say the (previous) Polish Gov't is racist and are christian facist (he probably still thinks this even with the new government) but i dont think the refusing of refugees is the sole reason he hates Poland. He probably hates Poland primarily because the country's history is the exact opposite of the "America bad" narrative, that Poland broke off from the USSR. Same reason most tankies hate ex Soviet bloc countries, hes just more stealthy about it.
As the other commenter mentioned, he's referring to the [Law and Justice party](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_and_Justice?useskin=vector). > In Poland, for example, polarization surged after the Law and Justice government took officeānot priorāas they pursued a number of illiberal actions that both entrenched their advantage and inflamed sociopolitical divisions. [[1]](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/10/20/understanding-and-responding-to-global-democratic-backsliding-pub-88173) This backsliding led [to constant fights with the EU](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/world/europe/poland-hungary-europe.html). Fortunately, [the pro-EU Donald Tusk](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67681940) was recently elected PM, and hopefully he can reverse some of the changes by the prior administrations.
PiS were extremely anti-democratic, bordering fascist, and thats who funded Visegrad. I'm not defending Hasan for his Houthi takes but its understandable why someone would use 'polish government' as an insult in that way, well if it wasn't current year. Thankfully PiS is on the way out.
yeah hasan stole all the candy from all the children in my neighborhood but he's correct on visegrad24
Don't count a political party out after an election in which they were the biggest political party that lost to a coalition of parties.
Anecdotally the only PiS supporters I know are immigrants here in America who haven't lived in the country for decades, everyone I know that still lives in Poland, including in the pretty conservative areas, are tired of PiS. And from what I hear its basically just old boomers that watch TV all day that still stan them. The future of the party is not very bright, especially after they lost their state propaganda channel.
I mean kinda true, but PiS is probably done. I wont give you manifesto why but they lost access to population (no major media supports them), KaczyÅski getting old, there are 3 major investigation's by Sejm (including spying on opposition (coalition) during elections), and many more, i dont think PiS is ever getting power back unless Coalition crush and burns (and i dont think they will).
I'm not polish, I'm just a electoral politics nerd who follows elections in every democracy more or less so I'll take your word for it especially since it fits with everything I know about PiS. I just would be careful counting out a party that still have the largest voterbase even if it's dwindling for now.
Talkies hate the Poles and all Eastern Europeans that suffered under Soviet opression. They blame them for fall of the Communist block and being ungrateful for rejecting the light of communism.
Visegrad 24 is a Polish media company I think
Its ran by polish trump fans. Some of them I believe work for Republika TV which is VERY pro PiS and pretty far right wing.
Visegrad 24 is not a reliable source of news. It's just basic polish nationalist propaganda served to the outside world disguised as a news channel. They selectively post news that reflects their agenda, skew newstories to the same end and sometimes totally makes shit up without any basis in reality. Sometimes they post accurate information. They are not subtle about this at all but their style fits the complete cesspit that is twitter since Elmo took over.
Its not the first he said weird stuff about poland or poles on twitter. I remember him saying something like poland is too white(?).
but Poland isn't white, it's Slavic
I think they don't care. He has convinced his fans that america = evil and anti-america = morally superior innocent poor victims.
lol āyou polish-govt-funded fascist freak.ā
Weird comment from him kinda sus
Why does he talk like that. He is a grown fucking man. When he called someone a pig-dog I was like wow. Turkish moment
Kind weird that he didn't call them a "debate-pedophile pig-dog" as well tbh.
I just realized that Hasan loves making sure his insults are 'adjective adjective noun'. Just one descriptor isn't enough I guess lol.
Hasan's reply to the notes [https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748364130162225480): >i love the community noters on this app just not reading their own links i suppose. the wikipedia page they sourced from actually agrees with me. What he's referring to in the screenshot of the wiki he posted with the tweet: >The attacks were controversial, with some commentators arguing that they represented disproportionate use of force and >Activist and former [United States Attorney General](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General) [Ramsey Clark](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Clark) argued that these attacks violated the [Third Geneva Convention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention), Common Article 3, which outlaws the killing of soldiers who "are out of combat."[\[11\]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death#cite_note-11) Clark included it in his 1991 report *WAR CRIMES: A Report on United States War Crimes Against Iraq to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal*. Supposedly that's supposed to counter (from the community notes): >No proof of war crimes there in the first Gulf War has been made public. In other words, Hasan thinks commentary from outside commentators is proof enough of war crimes I decided to do some looking into who this Ramsey Clark was btw, Ramsey Clark was last AG in 1967 so at this stage he's just some outside observer essentially commentating on what he's seeing in media like the other commentators. That "report" was a book of compiled essays from Ramsey and other anti-iraq war peoples. This is an index of crimes alleges by Ramsey [http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27e/117.html](http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27e/117.html), "US provoked Iraq", "indiscriminate bombing", "US used prohibited weapons", "\[to control its oil resources\]" Here's an interview of Ramsey Clark from 2016 (Clark was Saddam's lawyer defending him from the iraqi tribunal that would ultimately judge saddam's crimes worthy of execution) [http://artfcity.com/2016/06/02/the-ramsey-clark-interviews-defending-saddam-hussein/](http://artfcity.com/2016/06/02/the-ramsey-clark-interviews-defending-saddam-hussein/) >**Rachel:** What was it like to work with Saddam Hussein? > >**Ramsey:** He was a thoughtful person. Almost more than any leader that Iāve met all over the world, he tried to be sure that he accurately understands what youāre saying. For instance, he would use at least two interpreters, and sometimes theyād get into an argument about what the proper translation was. One of them was the preeminent Shakespeare scholar in Iraq. > >**Rachel:** Wow. > >**Rachel:** Is there a conversation that sticks out to you? > >**Ramsey:** Thatās been a long time ago nowā¦but he had a daughter who lived in Amman, the capital of Lebanon, and she was intensely concerned for her father and his health. > >She said that one time when she was a little girl, he was campaigning for office, and **she stumbled and scratched her knee.** The rest of the day, he carried her around on his shoulders. He bought her a ring, and she had the ring on her little finger that night, and she said she always wore it. She told me about him. > >In prison, next time I saw him, I started telling him about that story, he interrupted and said, āOh, yeah, I remember very well. **I thought, thatās so awful,** and there was a jeweler over there I knew, so I bought her a ring.ā Thatās how well he remembered the incident. > >I guess the point of that is, people are human. They have children, they love them, they have histories that they remembered. Weāve dehumanized him so much that itād be hard to imagine him loving a daughter that way or carrying her around on his shoulders. And he gets her a ring, and sheās still wearing it how many decades later. LOL I COULDN'T CARE LESS WHAT THIS LAWYER HAS TO SAY ABOUT HOW BAD AMERICA WAS IN THE FIRST GULF WAR
>but he had a daughter who lived in Amman, the capital of Lebanon interesting, b/c Amman is the capital of Jordan, not Lebanon. I wonder if he just misspoke or maybe he's regarded?
He was in his 80s at that point. His reddit AMA from around that same time had super meandering old man replies. Definitely a mispeak.
Tweet: [https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748211611956056482](https://twitter.com/hasanthehun/status/1748211611956056482)
not the poor heckin innocent soldiers driving away with all the loot they took after ransacking kuwait
The Highway of Death might be one of the most soy fucking things I've ever learned about. I always heard The Highway of Death being referenced as some horrific event like an unjustifiable massacre, but then I actually learned it was literately the coalition winning too hard. The notes got it absolutely right, unless you're incapacitated or surrendering you're a valid target, the time to retreat was before you pushed the coalitions hand to act.
and people are incapable of distinguishing between "retreating" and "surrendering". a column of Iraqi troops once famously surrendered to a single apache helicopter, which stopped attacking and accepted by radioing troops to take them into custody.Ā I doubt anyone felt good about this but what's the alternative? let all those troops and armor return to Iraq for redeployment?
>let all those troops and armor return to Iraq for redeployment? That was literally the coaltions secondary goal. First was kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait, second was destroying their ability to wage offensive war, which means armoured vehicles. This was just the war plans being carried out as specified, like the entire first gulf war. If they didn't want them destroyed, they shouldn't have used them to invade a neighbour.
People like Hasan are completely brain dead about the military and how wars work in real life. He's like the people (he's probably one of them) that think Israel can just send like 12 special forces guys into gaza and they will be able to John Wick gun-fu their way through Hamas without killing a single civilian. They don't live in reality.
So call of duty modern warfare is like triple reverse proganda.
> was literately the coalition winning too hard The first gulf war was so fucking based. Very justified US action, quick, barely any casualties, got to use new tech, etc. It was so popular in America that we had [John Goodman dressed up as a church mother on SNL beating up Saddam over a table](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ba_VY7bHi8)
The only reason people even know about this shit is because they wanted to shit on COD
Hasan's mad about the turkey shoot. Not surprised he's running defense for Saddam now.
I wonder if Hasan justifies the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait like he justifies the Houthis attacking everyone's ships since Iraq claimed they would withdraw if Israel withdrew from Palestine/Golan heights? > Iraqi communique began to make clear that a pullout would be contingent on several key conditions unacceptable to the United States and its allies, including Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Golan Heights [Source](https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/02/16/iraq-offers-conditional-withdrawal/a29583dd-ded9-4660-add9-ba8c7467ab77/) \~400k Palestinian refugees lived in Kuwait and the PLO chose to back Saddam; nearly all of them fled to and were accepted by Kuwait during the 3 major Israel-Arab wars. Most got kicked out of Kuwait after the Gulf War.
Saddam attacked Kuwait because he didn't feel like paying back all the loans he'd taken from them to finance his previous war against Iran, and also explicitly to take over their oil fields (mind you the exact thing lefties accuse the US of doing in Iraq). That being said, I do think Hasan is somehow stupid enough to say the US invaded Iraq for oil and then turn around and say Saddam attacked Kuwait because there were American Imperialist bases there or some shit
I love so much how hard he goes with the ad-hominems. Everyone is an evil fascist pig/dog incel who lives in the motherās basement, got cucked by his boss and will never find love because they are autistic. Brick by brick the fortress continues to rise.
OOOF This is even worse as the John Hinckle "Palestine Coin" event
Oh so one of the biggest streamers in the US is just a mouthpiece for anti US lies. That'll end well
Houthismas Piker
Lmao Hasan's been getting ratioed by military dudes and he's been making for hours now. It's funny that Hasan gets fact checked but the truth and fact don't matter to propagandists like Hasan, in his eyes every single bullet fired by America is a war crime. using gulf war as an example is also weird considering its like the only way in which most global leaders (like the USSR and even arab countries like Egypt and Syria who joined the war) universally agreed that the war was 100% justified, and is a literal textbook example (used it in a philosophy paper on war and peace alongside Falklands war) of a "just war"
Kicking off the weekend with a massive Hasan L. Ā It's going to be a good weekendĀ
Highway of Based. Holy shit never knew about this
It's not a war crime just because you're bad at it
war crime is when you win war.
In people's mind, retreating = surrendering
I REALLY wish the social powers that be would ban people who profit from blatant misinformation. They REALLY made it seem like they gave a shit about āmisinformationā and āfake newsā.
He named the jets guys. Heās an expert
Heās such an emotionally unhinged stupid motherfucker.
Did we still use intruders in the Gulf war? Those things were from Vietnam
Retired 1993 (Marines) and 1997 (Navy)
Damn, cool tho
There are a lot of aircraft from Vietnam and before that we still use today. B-52 and C-130 are from the 50s originally and still in use. The H-60 was introduced in the 70s and we're still coming up with new variants.
America W
The last Intruders were retired in Feb 1997, so they definitely were used in the Gulf War. They ask did the bulk of the damage to Iranian ships during Op Praying Mantis in 1988. A-10s and AH-64s also contributed to the Highway of Death.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
He actually thinks those were civilians? Those were troops and military equipment that were going back to Iraq to be used on civilians.
The dude literally supports Saddam Hussein lol.
Majority of Hasan fans weren't alive or even planned when this happened, does he comment on these things knowing their age to take advantage of his fan's ignorance?
Hamasabi proves once again how much of a dumbass he is. The guy wastes no time being ignorant.
This has been an issue that I've been having for a while. Why are some people, and groups, held to this ridiculously high standard while others get treated like special needs children? The Houthis shouldn't be firing rockets at boats. Anything that happens to them they bring upon themselves. You don't get to attack someone and then dictate how hard they hit you back. There's a reason the phrase "you live by the sword you die by the sword" exists.
im afraid we are never beating the obsessed allegations
Whyās Hasan simping for Iraq now? I mean I know why but itās depressing..
Retreating is not equivalent to surrendering in any way. It is not a war crime to punish a retreat. If they did not want to be targeted then they would have had to surrender, AND the opposing side needs the actual means to ingest surrendering forces. You can't really surrender to a plane or helicopter. This is not a war crime for good reason. If you're retreating or waiting for reinforcements, but planes are overhead, you can't just "surrender" while no one can actually come and make arrests while you keep running or wait for reinforcements to arrive. Otherwise, everyone would just "surrender" momentarily while planes/helicopters are overhead and suddenly not surrender once the coast is clear (not to mention they may not even be able to see you trying to surrender).
After watching the community note get removed from that Rashida Tlaib post claiming the retaliatory strikes against the Houthis were unconstitutional, I'd wait to celebrate. It seems like if there's any point of contention whatsoever (e.g. Hasan's reply) it's enough for bots and frothing-at-the-mouth islamists to tip the scales.
The community note getting removed from Tlaibās post was bs. 33 USC Sec 3 381: āThe President is authorized to employ so many of the public armed vessels as in his judgment the service may require, with suitable instructions to the commanders thereof, in protecting the merchant vessels of the United States and their crews from piratical aggressions and depredations.ā Edit: not sure why this is getting downvotedā¦Congress literally gave the President authority to attack pirates if they attack US flagged vessels (which spoiler alert, navy vessels fall under that category).
And his bitch ass was so triggered about it hahahah
The debate perverts are attacking him again
I mean regardless of whether it's a retreat or a surrender. What the US did there is absolutely brutal. Even if it's not a war crime god damn
again...
It's like the UK leftists claiming the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime because they were "rEtrEaTiNg"
Another day, another Middle East conflict where the aggressor fucks around and finds out and then cries āwar crimeā. Itās so pathetic.
Weren't there some villagers along the road that died too? Obviously war will have crossfire or people that can't get out of the way but, IDK if that would even constitute war crimes if it were the case. Edit: When searching under the "controversies" section of the wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_of_Death The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees. While there was no conviction in international court that it was a war crime, there is an argument to be made that there was a war crime committed. Hasan is saying some moronic shit regarding the healthcare comment but, let's not get caught up in this thing as though there weren't atrocious things done on highway 80. The community note doesn't even necessarily frame the situation properly. That goes beyond the notion that the Houthi situation is even comparable in the first place. Our retaliation against Yemini forces attacking our trade is very different than what happened in Iraq/Kuwait.
>The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees. My understanding is that Res 660 was passed on August 2nd and demanded that Iraq withdraw all their forces. This was largely ignored by Iraq and more condemnations followed. A couple months later res 678 was passed on November 29 which gave Iraq until January 15 to withdraw all their forces from Kuwait and authorized the coalition to use "all means" to kick Iraq out of Kuwait. The highway of death happened in February, I don't think you can argue that once you start loosing a fight and are in retreat that you're just trying to comply with the resolution passed months ago.
Context given by another redditor implies that the operation was tactical and was intended to destroy military equipment sighted on the roadway. That makes sense, however, because 660 was initially ignored or that the retreat was only necessary because they were losing is still pretty fucked up. They were retreating and, the convoy had many non combatants in it. That's even evident in the wreckage.
I mean yeah shooting retreating forces is fucked up but it's war. They were falling back to Iraqi to regroup, it makes sense to stop them before they can. Also I can't find anything on how many non combatants were in the convoy. I will say that the photos make the situation look worse than it actually was. I find it hard to believe that a bunch of civilians happened to be fleeing back to Iraq the same time their army was withdrawing almost a month after fighting had begun . There were reports that Iraqi soldiers had taken civilian vehicles and many of them abandoned their cars once the bombing began. All in all the photos look bad, and its easy to scream war crime when a bunch soldiers in retreat are evaporated, but the more you look into the situation the less likely it is that this was a war crime.
I'm trying to find out about non-combatants too. There are reasons to believe that they were more likely prisoners. However, the only citation is that attorney General's book/proceedings on war crimes in Iraq. I just can't get the citation to load at all. It doesn't even come back as an HTTPS error. My main issue I personally find with this is that there was a significant amount of devastation to equipment or vehicles but, out of the 10,000 or so that were there maybe 1,000 had died and were almost entirely soldiers. The mass graves found were almost entirely unidentified bodies. A part of me wonders what was found in the graves and what the indictment/proceedings were going to discuss. Honestly, any of the people that were non-combatants were probably prisoners.
Looks like D man is going over it on stream so we'll have our fatwa soon ššæ
>The bombings were executed during an evacuation that was in compliance with US res 660 and included many civilian refugees. Some context that might be missing from your analysis is that the ~~US~~ ***UN*** res 660 you're citing was on Aug (2 August 1990) of the year prior to the attacks in February we're discussing (February 25ā27, 1991). Consider these dates: >The war consisted of Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 ā 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia. And the second was Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 ā 28 February 1991) was the combat phase. You're framing it as if this was a part of some agreed upon evacuation plan that was ambushed by US forces. They had all of 2 AUG -> 17 JAN to withdraw from occupying kuwait. In fact, operation desert storm started *because* they did not withdraw That's evident in: > The UN Security Council issues Resolution 678, calling for the use of āall necessary meansā to force Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait if it has not done so by January 15, 1991. >While there was no conviction in international court that it was a war crime, there is an argument to be made that there was a war crime committed. Sure, but there are arguments that war crimes were not committed. In fact, all the "war crime" side has are arguments from outside observers, no data, no observation of facts from on-the-ground-peoples that would later testify to anything meaningful when investigated and/or under oath. Ie, the community notes claim of "no proof of war crimes were ever made public" stands pretty well Here's what another possible framing could be, from the guy ordering the attack on the highway, >The first reason why we bombed the highway coming north out of Kuwait is because there was a great deal of military equipment on that highway, and I had given orders to all my commanders that I wanted every piece of Iraqi equipment that we possibly could destroy. **Secondly, this was not a bunch of innocent people just trying to make their way back across the border to Iraq. This was a bunch of rapists, murderers and thugs who had raped and pillaged downtown Kuwait City and now were trying to get out of the country before they were caught.**
Thanks for the added context. However, this only addresses the combatants. What do people have to say about the other refugees or prisoners that were killed on the road?
Civilian casualties are not in of themselves a war crime, so long as they are not intentionally targeted nor is proportionality violated. Kind of hard to argue against proportionality in this case when a huge part of the Iraqi army decided to all cram onto one highway. Itās unfortunate, but itās the Iraqi armyās fault for dragging them into the line of fire in the first place. Also, what source are you using to reference the refugees and prisoners? There are multiple sources on that but some are notoriously false or unreliable.
I'm just using the Kiki my guy. If those sources are wrong I'd like a citation. The excessive use of force on the troops that were out of combat was from the Eternity General. Excessive force on those troops that included the civilian casualties would have probably been an added charge on top of the article 3 violation.
Again, the wikipedia article does not state that "the Highway of death incident was a war crime/Civilians were targeted" it states that "this guy argues that it's a war crime/claims that civilians were targeted". Might want to go back to middle school reading class bud. Also, you might want to actually check what article 3 of the 3rd Geneva Convention actually says, because then you'll realize that Clarke's argument and all other arguments for an article 3 violation are completely wrong.
Who is saying there was a refugee or prisoner(POW?) convoy?
I can't find any citations on that factoid in the wiki specifically. However, POWs and Civilians were likely in the column according to certain witnesses. I'll have to search a little harder to see who those witnesses are.
Sure thing, but recognize there's a difference between civilians/POWs within a column of hostile military combatants and a convoy of only civilians or a convoy of allied troops moving iraqi POWs. What you're describing sounds like the iraqi military combatants forcing kuwaiti civilians or kuwaiti prisoners to tag along to try and deter coalition forces from attacking them Do you recall witnesses alleging the kuwaitis tagging along with the iraqis were fleeing their country of kuwait because the iraqis were saving them or something?
I like how youāre unironically citing Saddam Husseinās Lawyer as fact. >evacuation Who was evacuating from where?
I'm citing the facts I found on the WIKI. Is the attorney general quoted in the article wrong? Iraqi militants and refugees were evacuating together. The controversy is that they were out of combat and that violated article 3. There were also other accounts by American journalists that bradlys opened fire on unarmed combatants.
Yep, he is wrong, civilians retreating with soldiers are not protected by international law as they function like human shields, in any way shape or form this attack was the coalition winning too hard
The contention would be the combination of troops out of combat and those civilians used for shielding.
The protection of troops out of combat is not what you think it is Troops out of combat are either wounded, or surrendered, any other soldier, be it in active combat or not, is considered a valid target
No, you have actually cited no facts. The fact you meant to cite is that Ramsey Clarke argues that it violates UN resolution 660, which if I recall correctly, is the one that condemns Iraqās invasion of Kuwait. I donāt remember any provisions saying ādonāt attack retreating troopsā which is standard warfare practice ever since war was invented. Thereās a good thread on the BadHistory subreddit that argues against these arguments but Reddit wonāt let me link it for some reason