Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Amnesty International issues a report documenting at least 14 civilians who have been killed in US Airstrikes in Somalia that may meet the UN's definition of "war crimes" . When reached for statement a Pentagon spokesman said : Nu-uh   (npr.org) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Human rights, Laws of war, United States, Attack, flurry of U.S. airstrikes, Abdullahi Hassan, Saudi Arabia, Last Month  
•       •       •

585 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Mar 2019 at 2:01 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



56 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2019-03-20 01:15:42 PM  
In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.
 
2019-03-20 01:37:24 PM  

edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.


While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.
 
2019-03-20 01:38:02 PM  

edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.


Gen. Curtis LeMay regarding the bombing of Tokyo "If we'd lost the war I'd be tried as war criminal"
 
2019-03-20 01:41:28 PM  
farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers
 
2019-03-20 01:49:00 PM  

edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.


There's a quantum of moral difference between two equally matched societies engaging in "total war" for their very survival, and one vastly technologically superior one raining death on another without any risk of harm to itself.   In the latter case, a much higher level of care is required.
 
2019-03-20 02:05:36 PM  
Why the fk are we bombing Somalia (?)
- Right, <brown folks> I forgot.
- Makin' more terrorists erryday, at this rate we ought to never run out.
 
2019-03-20 02:06:17 PM  
Nu-uh is military-speak for womp-womp.

The rare triple-hyphenated Fark comment. Wait! Four. The rare four-hyphenated Fark comment.

I'll just go back and come in again.
 
2019-03-20 02:06:21 PM  
Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.
 
2019-03-20 02:11:10 PM  

vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers


You could always join ISIS.
 
2019-03-20 02:11:38 PM  

whither_apophis: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

Gen. Curtis LeMay regarding the bombing of Tokyo "If we'd lost the war I'd be tried as war criminal"


What we did to Korea was probably as bad or worse. We didn't use nukes. We didn't need to. We erased Korea. When you see a dark Korea at night, a lot of that darkness comes gratis from the USAF.
 
2019-03-20 02:12:19 PM  
vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers


embiggening THIS
 
2019-03-20 02:12:38 PM  
It always was a funny thing about the Anti-Abortion crowd. Save the babies, but when you drop a 500 pound bomb into a village it only kills bad guys.
 
2019-03-20 02:15:25 PM  

vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers


Damn.  Cut down on the coffee.
 
2019-03-20 02:15:26 PM  
But Obama.
 
2019-03-20 02:16:32 PM  
"While the United States has been bombing Somalia for more than a decade, the Trump administration has accelerated the attacks."

In another decade we should have got them all.

/or we could bring home the troops and let them figure this out on their own.
 
2019-03-20 02:16:34 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.



There was no firm concept of war crimes, although there were generally agreed upon conventions about the rules of war upon which we built the modern concept of crimes against humanity. But in any case, one of the reasons nations abide by rules of war is that there is a legitimate concern that if they don't, their adversaries will stop following them too. The Germans and the Japanese had no problem with large-scale targeting of civilians, so they earned having their civilians targeted. Ideally, nations would still uphold principles even if their adversaries haven't but you can't expect that in the long-term. Sooner or later, the gloves are gonna come off.
 
2019-03-20 02:17:24 PM  
I heard this report on the radio this morning and was immediately wondering how it is that we have designed bombs that know the religious and political affiliations of the people on the ground.
 
2019-03-20 02:23:16 PM  
Since when have we cared about potentially committing war crimes?

/Asking for several hundred thousand Middle Eastern friends
 
2019-03-20 02:24:26 PM  

Pesky_Humans: I heard this report on the radio this morning and was immediately wondering how it is that we have designed bombs that know the religious and political affiliations of the people on the ground.


Username checks out...
 
2019-03-20 02:24:27 PM  

vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2019-03-20 02:25:19 PM  

edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.


Explain that to the families of those people, I'm sure they'll be like "OMG yeah you're right!  No hard feelings".

/"meh, so what, innocent people die all the time during war-time, although we never declared war on Somalia"
/you are the Bad Guys
 
2019-03-20 02:27:20 PM  

kbronsito: Benevolent Misanthrope: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.


There was no firm concept of war crimes, although there were generally agreed upon conventions about the rules of war upon which we built the modern concept of crimes against humanity. But in any case, one of the reasons nations abide by rules of war is that there is a legitimate concern that if they don't, their adversaries will stop following them too. The Germans and the Japanese had no problem with large-scale targeting of civilians, so they earned having their civilians targeted. Ideally, nations would still uphold principles even if their adversaries haven't but you can't expect that in the long-term. Sooner or later, the gloves are gonna come off.


we have a long history of simply handwaving away any concerns, like GW Bush did with the Geneva conventions.

Laws are for other people. When our war criminals get caught, we elect them to Congress.
 
2019-03-20 02:29:12 PM  

dr_blasto: kbronsito: Benevolent Misanthrope: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.


There was no firm concept of war crimes, although there were generally agreed upon conventions about the rules of war upon which we built the modern concept of crimes against humanity. But in any case, one of the reasons nations abide by rules of war is that there is a legitimate concern that if they don't, their adversaries will stop following them too. The Germans and the Japanese had no problem with large-scale targeting of civilians, so they earned having their civilians targeted. Ideally, nations would still uphold principles even if their adversaries haven't but you can't expect that in the long-term. Sooner or later, the gloves are gonna come off.

we have a long history of simply handwaving away any concerns, like GW Bush did with the Geneva conventions.

Laws are for other people. When our war criminals get caught, we elect them to Congress.


This may only apply to the Harley-riding right-wing warriors for christ, though. I wouldn't bank my future on it if you're not in that club.
 
2019-03-20 02:33:31 PM  

dr_blasto: kbronsito: Benevolent Misanthrope: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.


There was no firm concept of war crimes, although there were generally agreed upon conventions about the rules of war upon which we built the modern concept of crimes against humanity. But in any case, one of the reasons nations abide by rules of war is that there is a legitimate concern that if they don't, their adversaries will stop following them too. The Germans and the Japanese had no problem with large-scale targeting of civilians, so they earned having their civilians targeted. Ideally, nations would still uphold principles even if their adversaries haven't but you can't expect that in the long-term. Sooner or later, the gloves are gonna come off.

we have a long history of simply handwaving away any concerns, like GW Bush did with the Geneva conventions.

Laws are for other people. When our war criminals get caught, we elect them to Congress.


We used to at least put on a veneer of legality in our wrongdoing. I always remember how when we invaded Panama, five minutes before we got the guy that won the election before it was stolen, got ourselves a Panamanian judge, sworn him in at a secret ceremony and had his sign a document authorizing the US invasion. We could have just rolled up in there as a global power operating in our sphere of influence. But we put in all that effort to make everything sort of look ok. Lately we don't even seem to be trying.
 
2019-03-20 02:35:11 PM  

whr21: Why the fk are we bombing Somalia (?)
- Right, <brown folks> I forgot.
- Makin' more terrorists erryday, at this rate we ought to never run out.


Raytheon has to make guidance chips for something. And then, once the Pentagon buys the missiles, they go bad if you don't use them soon.

/narrator: they don't
 
2019-03-20 02:50:03 PM  

vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers


God, you're so cool. I wish I could have cool, sweeping, stupid views like you.
 
2019-03-20 02:50:55 PM  

Buck Dancer: vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers

You could always join ISIS.


A young friend of mine asked me a while back, why a guy with a backpack bomb would blow himself up in the foyer of an Ariana Grande concert venue.
I tried to explain what possible reason someone could have, to want to do something so heinous and it came out a little like this.

"Say the RAF bombs a city in Syria, one of the bombs hits a block of flats, not the intended target and kills all the members of a family, apart from a 10 year old boy. 8 years later, he travels to the UK, blows himself up and we all run around acting surprised."

Killing civilians in other countries is one of the best ways we know to make more terrorists. It isn't the only one ofc.

/Just sayin'
 
2019-03-20 02:51:10 PM  

LL316: Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.


You are completely incorrect. Maybe it feels good to say that, like you're somehow taking a moral high ground, but it's completely false.
 
2019-03-20 02:52:44 PM  

jethroe: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

Explain that to the families of those people, I'm sure they'll be like "OMG yeah you're right!  No hard feelings".

/"meh, so what, innocent people die all the time during war-time, although we never declared war on Somalia"
/you are the Bad Guys


You've clearly never met the actual bad guys. At all.
 
2019-03-20 02:54:13 PM  

Buck Dancer: vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers

You could always join ISIS.


I mean, that is how they get a chunk of members.
 
2019-03-20 02:59:45 PM  

Artisan Sandwich: LL316: Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.

You are completely incorrect. Maybe it feels good to say that, like you're somehow taking a moral high ground, but it's completely false.


Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. You can't always make sure no civilians die, but you should damn well do everything you can to avoid them, and take a long, hard look at the cause when they happen.

Waving them off and sayin "nah" is not the correct response.
 
2019-03-20 03:01:21 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Artisan Sandwich: LL316: Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.

You are completely incorrect. Maybe it feels good to say that, like you're somehow taking a moral high ground, but it's completely false.

Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. You can't always make sure no civilians die, but you should damn well do everything you can to avoid them, and take a long, hard look at the cause when they happen.

Waving them off and sayin "nah" is not the correct response.


So we both disagree with LL316, got it.
 
2019-03-20 03:09:46 PM  
These were all under Obama's watch....

/Just sayin.
 
2019-03-20 03:18:22 PM  

dwrash: These were all under Obama's watch....

/Just sayin.


And that makes multiple civilians bombed by the US more dead? Or less?
More a potential war crime? Less of one?
Were these innocent Africans particularly into partisan US politics before they were slaughtered?
What was your point again?
 
2019-03-20 03:20:37 PM  

kbronsito: dr_blasto: kbronsito: Benevolent Misanthrope: edmo: In WWII, the Allies killed more than 25,000 people in one night in a Berlin air raid. There was Dresden. There was Tokyo. A single death might be wrong, it might be homicide, but it's hardly going to constitute a war crime by western standards of war.

Sorry.

While I see your point, keep in mind that the rules were different then.  there wasn't even a concept of "crimes against humanity" until Jackson defined it for the post-war trials. (Yes, yes, oversimplification, but you know what I mean.)

I find it more interesting that the US is claiming that no civilians have been killed.  That means they are denying the deaths, because they know the deaths would be a violation of the rules of engagement as they stand for this conflict.  The question, then, is not whether civilian deaths would constitute a crime of war, but whether the crime happened at all.

And, of course, we know the military are always great about acknowledging their fark-ups.


There was no firm concept of war crimes, although there were generally agreed upon conventions about the rules of war upon which we built the modern concept of crimes against humanity. But in any case, one of the reasons nations abide by rules of war is that there is a legitimate concern that if they don't, their adversaries will stop following them too. The Germans and the Japanese had no problem with large-scale targeting of civilians, so they earned having their civilians targeted. Ideally, nations would still uphold principles even if their adversaries haven't but you can't expect that in the long-term. Sooner or later, the gloves are gonna come off.

we have a long history of simply handwaving away any concerns, like GW Bush did with the Geneva conventions.

Laws are for other people. When our war criminals get caught, we elect them to Congress.

We used to at least put on a veneer of legality in our wrongdoing. I always remember how when we invaded Panama, five minutes be ...


not unlike our whargarrblll legal arguments defining combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
2019-03-20 03:24:41 PM  

Artisan Sandwich: Natalie Portmanteau: Artisan Sandwich: LL316: Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.

You are completely incorrect. Maybe it feels good to say that, like you're somehow taking a moral high ground, but it's completely false.

Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. You can't always make sure no civilians die, but you should damn well do everything you can to avoid them, and take a long, hard look at the cause when they happen.

Waving them off and sayin "nah" is not the correct response.

So we both disagree with LL316, got it.


I mean, I agree that, ideally, we should have no civilian casualties.  And I think that we should scrap missions if we can't be reasonably sure to avoid them. Sometimes civilians die.

But at the same time, we should absolutely be held accountable for them.
 
2019-03-20 03:39:28 PM  

Almea Tarrant: dwrash: These were all under Obama's watch....

/Just sayin.

And that makes multiple civilians bombed by the US more dead? Or less?
More a potential war crime? Less of one?
Were these innocent Africans particularly into partisan US politics before they were slaughtered?
What was your point again?


It means if any war crimes are ever tried... Obama should be a defendant.
 
2019-03-20 03:44:53 PM  
lol war crimes. If war crimes mattered, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Obama and Trump would be in jail for life.
 
2019-03-20 03:52:27 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: Artisan Sandwich: Natalie Portmanteau: Artisan Sandwich: LL316: Want to know when civilian casualties are acceptable?  Never.  Never is when they're acceptable.

/Unless you're Jack Bower.

You are completely incorrect. Maybe it feels good to say that, like you're somehow taking a moral high ground, but it's completely false.

Civilian casualties should be avoided at all costs. You can't always make sure no civilians die, but you should damn well do everything you can to avoid them, and take a long, hard look at the cause when they happen.

Waving them off and sayin "nah" is not the correct response.

So we both disagree with LL316, got it.

I mean, I agree that, ideally, we should have no civilian casualties.  And I think that we should scrap missions if we can't be reasonably sure to avoid them. Sometimes civilians die.

But at the same time, we should absolutely be held accountable for them.


Yep, agree completely. Saying there's never an acceptable time is quite ignorant of the realities of war/battle/insurgency/etc.
 
2019-03-20 04:07:38 PM  
War is a crime. As much as I appreciate those who struggle to bring a scintilla of decency to its conduct, war is inherently indecent. Until human beings learn how to restrain greed, anger, pride, ignorance, and all those things which lead us to take up arms against each other, the notion of "war crimes" will remain fundamentally redundant.
 
2019-03-20 04:08:36 PM  
But in a statement responding to the Amnesty International report, AFRICOM says that even though it has conducted more than 100 strikes since June of 2017, it has never killed or injured a single civilian.

"AFRICOM airstrikes are primarily conducted in secluded, low-populated areas," the statement read. "AFRICOM complies with the law of armed conflict and takes all feasible precautions to minimize civilian casualties and other collateral damage. We have processes in place to ensure the safety and protection of the local population remains a top priority."


The two bolded phrases do not mean the same thing. In the linked statement, AFRICOM says no civilians were killed in strikes that were investigated after 13 particular allegations were submitted by Amnesty International. The quoted bit says they avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.

"War crime" has an actual definition under the Law of Armed Conflict.
 
2019-03-20 04:20:05 PM  
You can't be indicted for war crimes if you dissolve the war crimes tribunal
 
2019-03-20 04:30:19 PM  

lolmao500: lol war crimes. If war crimes mattered, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Clinton, Obama and Trump would be in jail for life.


Kissinger too.
 
2019-03-20 04:33:07 PM  

Catlenfell: You can't be indicted for war crimes if you dissolve the war crimes tribunal


Feck great libratos.
 
2019-03-20 04:48:02 PM  

Gpzjock: Buck Dancer: vudukungfu: farmers, women and an eight-year-old girl

Fark the troops
fark the US
fark all of you with flags and yellow ribbons and stickers

You could always join ISIS.

A young friend of mine asked me a while back, why a guy with a backpack bomb would blow himself up in the foyer of an Ariana Grande concert venue.
I tried to explain what possible reason someone could have, to want to do something so heinous and it came out a little like this.

"Say the RAF bombs a city in Syria, one of the bombs hits a block of flats, not the intended target and kills all the members of a family, apart from a 10 year old boy. 8 years later, he travels to the UK, blows himself up and we all run around acting surprised."

Killing civilians in other countries is one of the best ways we know to make more terrorists. It isn't the only one ofc.

/Just sayin'


i.imgur.comView Full Size

We will never learn this lesson. And it's wonderful for arms manufacturers.
 
2019-03-20 04:51:17 PM  

dwrash: Almea Tarrant: dwrash: These were all under Obama's watch....

/Just sayin.

And that makes multiple civilians bombed by the US more dead? Or less?
More a potential war crime? Less of one?
Were these innocent Africans particularly into partisan US politics before they were slaughtered?
What was your point again?

It means if any war crimes are ever tried... Obama should be a defendant.


BUT OBAMA YOU GUYS - I WIN
i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2019-03-20 05:02:52 PM  
Why not an anti-glacierpost?
 
2019-03-20 05:10:19 PM  

dwrash: Almea Tarrant: dwrash: These were all under Obama's watch....

/Just sayin.

And that makes multiple civilians bombed by the US more dead? Or less?
More a potential war crime? Less of one?
Were these innocent Africans particularly into partisan US politics before they were slaughtered?
What was your point again?

It means if any war crimes are ever tried... Obama should be a defendant.


Yes. Most or all recent US presidents should be too. Interesting that you just mentioned the one.
 
2019-03-20 05:22:22 PM  
War crimes only apply to those who lose the war.
 
2019-03-20 07:08:52 PM  

jso2897: But Obama.


get this troublemaker outta here.   everyone knows that there were no US war crimes from 2009-2016.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter




In Other Media
Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report