Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don't exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn't happen.
But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump?
Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there.
But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.
I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs "cautiously optimistic" and TDs "cautiously pessimistic" takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.
Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don't think it's all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with Nelson and Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it.
The school was a horrific tragedy that was the result of targeting mistake, not a deliberate attack on civilians. So no, not a war crime. The bridge may be a little murkier, but if it was a vital military resource, I think it may escape the war crime category as well.
Greetings. The destruction of the girls school was certainly a tragedy. However, I don’t think that counts as a war crime because that was actually an accident. The US and Israel did not intentionally destroy a girls school. They were using outdated information about where the actual target was, but it had been converted into a girls school by the time the the school was destroyed. War crimes, I believe count when it’s intentional as opposed to accidental. When it’s accidental, that’s called casualties of war. I’m not an attorney, but in my opinion, the death and destruction of the girls school was certainly a tragedy, but not a war crime.
I've been to Dresden Germany that the Allies firebombed and killed tens of thousands of civilians. They also firebombed Hamburg, Kassel, Munich and Berlin just to name a few. And these were designed and purposely executed. Are these War Crimes?
Right, except Trump's military operation was never ratified as war and never approved by congress. It's no more legal or morally justified than Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
I believe you have it correct. Seems that given their stupid threatening remarks neither Trump nor Hegseth has done even a cursory reading of the NATO agreements and 1949 Geneva Conventions. To wit, Trump’s stating that he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages”, and the order by Pete Hegseth, to show “no quarter, no mercy” were illegal and also represent pressuring military leadership to break moral principles and law they committed to uphold, regardless of what an enemy may do.
Again, it was an accident. It was not intentional in the way that the IRGC intentionally murdered thousands of the Iranian citizens for protesting. Accidents are not war crimes, they are tragedies.
The bombing if the girls school is not the same thong
Hi John. So my admittedly uninformed take on Iran, is that I would love for the mullah / IRGC regime to fall, but I don't exactly trust Trump and his merry band to actually see that through, and really am not sure the whole thing will be worth it, if that doesn't happen.
But my question is, have you also noticed that for most pundits, their degree of support or lack thereof for the war, seems to be based solely on their level of support or lack thereof, for Trump?
Of course we have the MAGA cultists supporting whatever Trump does, even if he contradicts himself within the hour. Nothing new there.
But we also have most Bulwarkers, not only opposing the war, but proclaiming that Iran is actually winning, and at times even appear to be gleeful about it, just because it makes Trump look bad. I honestly find that attitude quite gross.
I have appreciated the more nuanced coverage by NR and TD, but even there, NRs "cautiously optimistic" and TDs "cautiously pessimistic" takes are essentially simpatico with their overall editorial approaches to Trump.
Do you think this war is for most political pundits, little more than just another referendum on the Orange Man? I don't think it's all of them, certainly. I appreciated your recent podcast interviews with Nelson and Coté because they do NOT give me that impression. Also, if you can give me names of other analysts I can trust to actually try to analyze the war itself, I would appreciate it.
The US blew up a girls school where ~160 people died and they blew up the biggest bridge where more civilians died. Does that count as a war crime?
https://share.google/aimode/QPduR46OeMKVGWVgQ
and
https://share.google/aimode/gcmWPcq8Ykkry6qEn
The school was a horrific tragedy that was the result of targeting mistake, not a deliberate attack on civilians. So no, not a war crime. The bridge may be a little murkier, but if it was a vital military resource, I think it may escape the war crime category as well.
Greetings. The destruction of the girls school was certainly a tragedy. However, I don’t think that counts as a war crime because that was actually an accident. The US and Israel did not intentionally destroy a girls school. They were using outdated information about where the actual target was, but it had been converted into a girls school by the time the the school was destroyed. War crimes, I believe count when it’s intentional as opposed to accidental. When it’s accidental, that’s called casualties of war. I’m not an attorney, but in my opinion, the death and destruction of the girls school was certainly a tragedy, but not a war crime.
That, my friend, is a load of BS.
Negligence is not an excuse for mass murder of civilians.
Intent is not required for guilt.
You can't rain down ordinance from above on targets you "think" are legitimate, and when you find out they aren't, say whoopsie! and move on.
It's pretty disappointing you would try to minimise something so objectively awful.
I've been to Dresden Germany that the Allies firebombed and killed tens of thousands of civilians. They also firebombed Hamburg, Kassel, Munich and Berlin just to name a few. And these were designed and purposely executed. Are these War Crimes?
Yes they were, just If they were committed today.
You didn't learn much while you were there apparently.
Also, maybe stop with the false equivalences.
I've learned plenty with over 50 years of travel worldwide. But I suspect that in your opinion, the crews of the B17's were therefore war criminals.
It’s not minimizing the tragedy. The rules of war are different from the rules of society. But like I said, I’m not an attorney.
Right, except Trump's military operation was never ratified as war and never approved by congress. It's no more legal or morally justified than Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
I believe you have it correct. Seems that given their stupid threatening remarks neither Trump nor Hegseth has done even a cursory reading of the NATO agreements and 1949 Geneva Conventions. To wit, Trump’s stating that he would bomb Iran “back to the Stone Ages”, and the order by Pete Hegseth, to show “no quarter, no mercy” were illegal and also represent pressuring military leadership to break moral principles and law they committed to uphold, regardless of what an enemy may do.
Again, it was an accident. It was not intentional in the way that the IRGC intentionally murdered thousands of the Iranian citizens for protesting. Accidents are not war crimes, they are tragedies.
The bombing if the girls school is not the same thong