• saimen@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    Can someone explain to me why this second strike is such a big deal but the first isn’t?

    • OpenPassageways@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      36 minutes ago

      The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you’ve neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.

      “Exterminate people you don’t like” is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.

      But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it’s just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.

      The second strike is blatantly illegal and there’s really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they’re essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren’t behaving like legitimate military leadership.

        • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          21 minutes ago

          That’s not even the argument the administration is making. Their argument is that the drugs themselves are the weapon/combatant. So they argue it’s perfectly legal to destroy the drugs and hand wave away the collateral damage of the humans operating the boat. But if the drugs were already destroyed then their entire argument goes out the window for a need for a second strike.

          Its stupid, I know.

      • saimen@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        44 minutes ago

        I understand this. My question was, why it wasn’t illegal to shoot the ship in the first place.

        • Sunflier@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          21 minutes ago

          Why not both?

          But, really, it’s the order for no quarter that is the main course of illegality. Simply put, even if they make a claim of bad intel or “I was just following orders”, the extra twist of the knife in the no-quarters order is in of itself a fundamental illegal knife twist that prevents him from getting away with any “whoopsie daisy” defense.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    If the military aren’t going to think about the orders they’re given, maybe it’ll give them pause when the person giving them is clearly a coward who will blame those he ordered

  • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 hours ago

    Once you get to the information age and put enough research points in your tech tree to unlock satellite imagery, fog of war is cleared.

  • Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Last week he didn’t order the first strike.

    At the beginning of the week he didn’t order the second strike.

    Today he ordered the second strike but didn’t see any survivors.

    America is fucked. Any other timeline the FBI and MPs would be marching into the Pentagon and arresting him and everyone else involved for murder

    • butwhyishischinabook@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      They definitely should, but would they? After what the US did to Guatemala, Chile, etc. I doubt that would ever happen, although the war criminals would probably be more subtle.

    • JigglySackles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Don’t think he’s got the mental capacity or inclination to read that many words to even know who the Alethi are.