I agree with your argument in general, but hasn't the US shot drone missiles (accidentally, for certain values of that word) at plenty of civilians as part of its was on terror?

[–] snek@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Eh, it isn't on the same level as erasing an entire bloodline on a genocidal crusade, but yes. Does that make it okay? Did the US not get shit for that and continue to get shit for that? During this whole war on Gaza, I've seen the history of America being used as a tell-tale example of how not to do this or any war ever in the future... And it doesn't make Israel look any more "stellar", especially not when it hides behind others' atrocities to dilute its own in the eyes of the world. No different than Putin who makes similar remarks on a regular basis.

[–] Quexotic@infosec.pub 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Right. Biden explicitly said “Don’t make the same mistakes we made in 9/11. There’s no reason we had to be in a war in Afghanistan. There’s no reason we had to do so many things that we did.”

Like, Biden pushes HARD for that war. That's the voice of regret. I suspect Israel will have similar regrets.

Too much death.

[–] MisterScruffy@lemmy.ml 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Bidens words say one thing but his actions say kill all you like

[–] Quexotic@infosec.pub 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Pretty much. I wasn't saying that so much to defend Biden as to agree with the fact that the US has done similar in the past.

I honestly think that Biden is conflicted;

On the one hand, I'm sure that it's sound geopolitical strategy to support Israel. For the same kind of reasons it's sound geopolitical strategy to support Ukraine.

On the other hand, Benny McGenocide over there is fucking it up for Biden and everyone else that supported Israel.

Biden reacted too slow, but he also had to balance competing interests. Definitely a no-win situation. He could not have easily stopped support for Israel, and I truly believe that he's not a fan of the genocide.

His track record for pushing the US into war following 9/11 does reveal his character too. Actions do speak louder than words. It would be interesting to know what exactly was going on in his head back then. I think the conversation with netanyahu is interesting in that it shows what sounds like regret.

You're right though. He's done what he's done. He'll only ever at best be the least worst option.

The whole situation makes me sick and sad. War crimes answered with war crimes.

[–] Milk_Sheikh@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago

It’s a complex answer to why I’d personally hold a drone operator in 2001ish to a similar but higher standard than a guard at their post, versus the IAF today. The former are working with semi limited/limited information: this uniform = enemy but there’s a dark shape in an alley, there’s the front line of contact but why is that person digging by the roadside, drone rolled up from its 32hr autonomous flight plan and now there’s live intel feed - all limited information. In those scenarios genuine, honest mistakes are possible but always avoidable. That’s the “fog” part of the ‘fog of war’ - making life or death decisions quickly with limited knowledge.

All that doesn’t apply to the IAF right now… The fog is clear now; the ISR and SIGINT capabilities of Israel are very strong, drones and satellites are all over Gaza, the bombing targets are clearly identified along with the “collateral” civilian deaths it will cause:

In the early days of the offensive, the head of its air force spoke of relentless, “around the clock” airstrikes… but he added: “We are not being surgical.”

Describing the unit’s targeting process, an official said: “The operatives of Hamas are not immune – no matter where they hide.”

Multiple sources told the Guardian and +972/Local Call that when a strike was authorised on the private homes of individuals identified as Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives, target researchers knew in advance the number of civilians expected to be killed. Each target, they said, had a file containing a collateral damage score that stipulated how many civilians were likely to be killed in a strike.

That’s no longer an “ooops, well we tried hard to limit civilian deaths” if you’re callous about the human cost to achieve your political/military goals. But as long as they’re not your people I guess?

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago

Not accidental, coincidental. They had lists of targets and next to each the level of acceptable collateral damage. Afghanistan showed very clearly where that kind of "ah fuck it" attitude leads: Somehow the German-occupied regions were much, much calmer than the US ones. Now you'll hear Americans say "yeah of course we took the hard tasks and left you the rest" but the thing is: Americans made it hard for themselves. Taliban actually once wrote an apology letter to the Bundeswehr, saying "sorry for attacking your convoy, some idiots of ours confused you for Americans".