i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)
true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.
stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.
Or Ukraine’s civilians. Or the 500k–2M dead civilians during the war against Iraq. Oh, sorry, those were “collateral”…
Usually citizens are not considered fair targets. They’re just targeted all the same.
Iran does not have the military capabilities to fight off Israel, let alone the USA. So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the very important people who decide to keep going or stop are also the least likely to see their life at risk. And in this case, they also happen to not give a flying fuck about civilians lives.
So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.
Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA? That’s the number one way to get ordinary civilians of a democracy to support an actual war almost 100%. It’s the kind of strategy that makes Pentagon say “yeah lol be my guest let’s see what happens”.
On 9/11, the message sent was very unclear (“we hate you for your overall activity in the middle-east and the rest of the world” and/or “death to America”).
This time, it may be very clear: “that’s retaliation for the unjustified bombing of our country” (though Iran had its share of chanting “death to America”, so yes, YMMV).
I agree with you, you know: more deaths will lead to more retaliations, from both sides. Someone has to act like a true adult responsible pragmatic leader now. But there is none in power on either side.
In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.
If there’s a war, don’t think you’re getting off the hook just because you’re a civilian. During war, the old adage “If your not with us, you’re against us” becomes weaponized.
Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it’s convenient. President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’ so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.
Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?
It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.
It used to be that non-combatants weren’t considered legitimate targets. Ain’t progress fun?
i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)
true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.
stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.
tell that to all the civilians in Guantanamo and Gaza.
if the first aggressor doesn’t give a fuck about rule of war, it can’t complain about them
Putin has been doing it for nearly 3 years now
Or Ukraine’s civilians. Or the 500k–2M dead civilians during the war against Iraq. Oh, sorry, those were “collateral”…
Usually citizens are not considered fair targets. They’re just targeted all the same.
Iran does not have the military capabilities to fight off Israel, let alone the USA. So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.
Unfortunately, and as usual, the very important people who decide to keep going or stop are also the least likely to see their life at risk. And in this case, they also happen to not give a flying fuck about civilians lives.
Remember what happened the last time a major terrorist strike happened in USA? That’s the number one way to get ordinary civilians of a democracy to support an actual war almost 100%. It’s the kind of strategy that makes Pentagon say “yeah lol be my guest let’s see what happens”.
The USA responded by attacking the wrong country under the false premise of "weapons of mass destruction "?
Go explain that to Iran’s leaders. Good luck!
On 9/11, the message sent was very unclear (“we hate you for your overall activity in the middle-east and the rest of the world” and/or “death to America”).
This time, it may be very clear: “that’s retaliation for the unjustified bombing of our country” (though Iran had its share of chanting “death to America”, so yes, YMMV).
I agree with you, you know: more deaths will lead to more retaliations, from both sides. Someone has to act like a true adult responsible pragmatic leader now. But there is none in power on either side.
In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.
If there’s a war, don’t think you’re getting off the hook just because you’re a civilian. During war, the old adage “If your not with us, you’re against us” becomes weaponized.
Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it’s convenient. President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’ so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.
I thought that term first came in vogue during Dubya’s term.
Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?
It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.
“War is terrible”
Wow, such a great take. You should be in charge. Any more deep insights?
Lol. You’re following me around now to insult me? And you called me a neckbeard…