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.

(BBC-US)   Pentagon investigates self, finds nothing   (bbc.com) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Laws of war, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, Gen Garrett's report, initial review, Pentagon spokesman, enemy combatants, defensive rules of engagement, United States Department of Defense  
•       •       •

949 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 May 2022 at 9:50 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



20 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-05-18 9:51:51 PM  
Oh they found something, subby, just no wrongdoing.  Probably because brown people were involved.
 
2022-05-18 9:51:53 PM  
Did they search all five corners?
 
2022-05-18 9:53:22 PM  
Nobody watches the watchmen.
 
2022-05-18 9:55:19 PM  
The problem is the rules are broken. They're made with a certain number of tolerable civilian deaths in mind. If they think an air strike will be under the target and the oopsie a bunch of little kids into ash, nobody is in the wrong because they were just following orders.

It's amazing we think we're the good guys just because Russia happens to be worse at the moment.
 
2022-05-18 9:55:45 PM  
A US military investigation has found that troops did not violate the laws of war or deliberately cause civilian casualties in an air strike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people.

You dropped heavy munitions in an area populated by civilians.  What the fark did you think would happen?
 
2022-05-18 9:56:51 PM  
Thats how you know the "law of war" is meaningless, because its a system whereby the US finds itself innocent of any crime and always finds its enemies guilty of every crime.

How many farking ISIS terrorists do you think they decided "weren't guilty" of a war crime because they "conducted their targeting in line with standard procedures to mitigate the loss of civilian lives and were not aware of civilians around their target?" 

Gen Garrett's report says that "through no fault of his own" the commander relied on data that was not fully accurate. In authorising the strikes, it adds, the commander "acted within presidentially-authorised defensive rules of engagement, did not deliberately or with wanton disregard cause civilian casualties, and did not violate the laws of war".

Yup there it is.  "its not his fault he used inaccurate information" and "he was operating in the rules of engagement and didn't mean to kill civilians"
 
2022-05-18 9:57:52 PM  
Drones: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Youtube K4NRJoCNHIs


"The question 'How many people have you killed in drone strikes?' is not one of those questions where it's OK to say, 'I don't know.'. It's not like asking someone, "Who was the voice of Disney's Aladdin?" or 'What are Skittles made from?'"
 
2022-05-18 9:58:37 PM  

Murkanen: A US military investigation has found that troops did not violate the laws of war or deliberately cause civilian casualties in an air strike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people.

You dropped heavy munitions in an area populated by civilians.  What the fark did you think would happen?


Collateral damage.  The civilians weren't deliberately targeted, they were simply incidental to bombing the actual target.

Y'know, the target that wasn't there.
 
2022-05-18 10:00:11 PM  

Meatsim1: Thats how you know the "law of war" is meaningless, because its a system whereby the US finds itself innocent of any crime and always finds its enemies guilty of every crime.

How many farking ISIS terrorists do you think they decided "weren't guilty" of a war crime because they "conducted their targeting in line with standard procedures to mitigate the loss of civilian lives and were not aware of civilians around their target?" 

Gen Garrett's report says that "through no fault of his own" the commander relied on data that was not fully accurate. In authorising the strikes, it adds, the commander "acted within presidentially-authorised defensive rules of engagement, did not deliberately or with wanton disregard cause civilian casualties, and did not violate the laws of war".

Yup there it is.  "its not his fault he used inaccurate information" and "he was operating in the rules of engagement and didn't mean to kill civilians"


The US has found military members guilty of war crimes.  It's just there's a large enough part of the electorate that can be swayed by a opportunistic politician who is willing to pardon those war criminals.
 
2022-05-18 10:00:51 PM  

Murkanen: A US military investigation has found that troops did not violate the laws of war or deliberately cause civilian casualties in an air strike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people.

You dropped heavy munitions in an area populated by civilians.  What the fark did you think would happen?


i.makeagif.comView Full Size
 
2022-05-18 10:04:35 PM  

Summoner101: Murkanen: A US military investigation has found that troops did not violate the laws of war or deliberately cause civilian casualties in an air strike in Syria in 2019 that killed dozens of people.

You dropped heavy munitions in an area populated by civilians.  What the fark did you think would happen?

Collateral damage.  The civilians weren't deliberately targeted, they were simply incidental to bombing the actual target.

Y'know, the target that wasn't there.


It'd be great if countries would stop using weasel words and post-hoc justifications for what they do with their weapons in a war zone.

You're going to willfully and deliberately kill civilians because you think the target justifies the deaths that result?  Just farking say so.  Be honest about what you're doing and why, don't hide behind weasel words and obfuscation like farking cowards.
 
2022-05-18 10:10:48 PM  

Likwit: The problem is the rules are broken. They're made with a certain number of tolerable civilian deaths in mind. If they think an air strike will be under the target and the oopsie a bunch of little kids into ash, nobody is in the wrong because they were just following orders.

It's amazing we think we're the good guys just because Russia happens to be worse at the moment.


Few things disgust me more about our nation than our current 'acceptable' casualties policies.

All we do create 10 more terrorists for every 1 we kill.
 
2022-05-18 10:17:53 PM  
Which time? Oh, that time. Oh THAT time.
 
2022-05-18 10:20:33 PM  

Mukster: Did they search all five corners?


No one was there.
Not even the chair.
 
2022-05-18 10:20:36 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Likwit: The problem is the rules are broken. They're made with a certain number of tolerable civilian deaths in mind. If they think an air strike will be under the target and the oopsie a bunch of little kids into ash, nobody is in the wrong because they were just following orders.

It's amazing we think we're the good guys just because Russia happens to be worse at the moment.

Few things disgust me more about our nation than our current 'acceptable' casualties policies.

All we do create 10 more terrorists for every 1 we kill.


I don't want to say that's the point because I don't think we're purposely creating terrorists (...except when we do...🤔), but the point is that someone got to make money off of an expensive missile system.
 
2022-05-18 10:43:58 PM  
Maybe it should take a year off to backpack around Europe?
 
2022-05-18 11:18:22 PM  
The US-led multinational coalition against IS has acknowledged killing at least 1,417 civilians in air strikes in Iraq and Syria since 2014. But monitoring group Airwars believes the actual figure is between 8,192 and 13,244.

Just a couple thousand new families that have a strong reason to hate America. I wonder where all these terrorists keep coming from?
 
2022-05-18 11:21:43 PM  

Summoner101: Meatsim1: Thats how you know the "law of war" is meaningless, because its a system whereby the US finds itself innocent of any crime and always finds its enemies guilty of every crime.

How many farking ISIS terrorists do you think they decided "weren't guilty" of a war crime because they "conducted their targeting in line with standard procedures to mitigate the loss of civilian lives and were not aware of civilians around their target?" 

Gen Garrett's report says that "through no fault of his own" the commander relied on data that was not fully accurate. In authorising the strikes, it adds, the commander "acted within presidentially-authorised defensive rules of engagement, did not deliberately or with wanton disregard cause civilian casualties, and did not violate the laws of war".

Yup there it is.  "its not his fault he used inaccurate information" and "he was operating in the rules of engagement and didn't mean to kill civilians"

The US has found military members guilty of war crimes.  It's just there's a large enough part of the electorate that can be swayed by a opportunistic politician who is willing to pardon those war criminals.


Eddie Gallagher was convicted of a nothing crime compared to killing thousands of civilians throughout a campaign.

Another guy who killed 16 civilians with a rifle was convicted of murder https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bales

Notice that in a clear example of a war crime the US government doesn't actually admit it committed a war crime. Instead this person they trained, gave a uniform, sent to a war, and wears their flag and takes their money doesn't actually represent them. Instead he's an individual murderer, and the US itself is blameless because no one ordered him to do that.

Point is the US government will never find itself guilty of a war crime, it will never say "a commander ordered this action and it was a war crime for him to do so and his soldiers to carry it out"
 
2022-05-18 11:26:53 PM  

Valter: Which time? Oh, that time. Oh THAT time.


RIKER: What was that?
DATA: I believe what could be termed the Manheim Effect is becoming more pronounced.
 
2022-05-19 11:58:46 AM  

Mukster: Did they search all five corners?


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  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.