r/askanything • u/okymoney • 4h ago
Has America committed war crimes in the last 10 years?
They are really trying to brush this one off… but killing 168 school children and teachers in Iran is probably a war crime. Cause if Iran launched missiles at a childrens school in America then its 1000% a war crime.
103
u/Any_Carob3372 4h ago
Yes, in the last ten days? Also yes. Last ten hours? Yepper!
2
u/Conscious_Laugh_3280 3h ago
Then let Iran take the U.S. before The Hague again.
Not that it's really ever gotten them anywhere before.
9
u/nunya_bidnes77 4h ago
Got any specific examples? Or is this just rhetoric?
11
u/SEABOSRUN 3h ago
The 2021 Kabul drone strike that killed 10 civilians, including seven children, after the U.S. mistakenly believed it was targeting ISIS-K operatives is a pretty clean example.
Saying 'oops we thought it was someone else' isn't a legal defense.
10
6
u/blacksheepussy 3h ago
That is not a war crime. The internet has zero understanding of what actually constitutes a war crime. Additionally, the Biden Administration signed off on that strike and then lied about the target.
→ More replies (4)2
u/wrghf 2h ago
I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that, and it’s hard to say for certain if we don’t have all of the details, which we likely never will.
It “can” be justified if the act happened on foot of intelligence that was trustworthy and reliably believed to be true. There’s a grey area here and IHL recognises that not every single mistake, or accident, or tragedy is automatically a war crime.
1
1
1
1
u/Penelope742 2h ago
Bombing non-military infrastructure is. Also civilian infrastructure, bridges, water systems
1
u/nunya_bidnes77 2h ago
Bridges and other infrastructure are 100% a valid target especially if it can and is used by the military. Just like how Ukraine is 100% justified in targeting Ferries and the Kerch bridges as well as tail lines and roads. The desalinization plant in question only had its power knocked out and its raw water intake destroyed. The plant itself is completely intact.
→ More replies (22)1
u/CoatKind6850 2h ago
Targeting civilian infrastructure like desalination plants or power plants
1
u/nunya_bidnes77 2h ago
The desalinization plant was not directly targeted. Only it's power connections and intake were taken offline. The plant still exists intact but idle.
5
→ More replies (11)1
u/Appropriate-Cap3325 21m ago
They been committing war crimes since 1776. But so has every major country
34
u/Penguin_Life_Now 4h ago
Having a munition accidentally hit the wrong target is not a war crime, before precision munitions it was more the norm than the exception.
8
u/nunya_bidnes77 3h ago
Yeah people forget the US created its stupidly accurate smart munitions and guided missiles specifically to avoid collateral damage.
→ More replies (23)2
u/Frederf220 3h ago
Well that and 5 sorties of 12 aircraft each to have a high chance of hitting a bridge was kinda poor applesauce.
0
u/WorthMassive8132 3h ago
It wasn't accidental - they've even gone as far as to say that it's because Iran "used to use the school for military operations". It's also not enough excuse for killing hundreds of children with fucking bombs.
3
u/rhino369 3h ago
It's not a good excuse--clearly it was a fuck up. But those kinds of mistakes aren't really war crimes. There isn't really a crime of negligence in international law.
Moreover, we should all understand that while those types of fuck ups should be punished, its going to happen regardless. It's just not possible to make 13,000 targets and not make mistakes.
So when you call for war, you should understand the cost. It's a good reason to avoid the war in the first place. There is no clean war.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Living-Trust7356 3h ago
It's not an excuse it is the standard by which war crimes are determined. Your feelings about the wrongness of the event does not add legality
2
u/rhino369 2h ago
I'm not an expert, but I did get an A- in Law of War at a good law school. I don't agree that accidental targets violate the laws of war.
I actually wrote a paper that suggested that the ICC should consider multiple targets together to argue that drone programs should be a war crime. My reasoning is that even though you are trying to kill a target, you know that every 10th time, you accidentally wipe out a wedding party. When you average it all together, it fails the proportionality requirement.
But as far as I could tell, nobody ever interpreted the law that way. And even under the interpretation I proposed, 12,999/13,000 wouldn't be a war crime.
1
u/Living-Trust7356 2h ago
Then you're in a better position than me to guess.
But nothing put forward in the thread says war crime to me. Dirty pool sure, bad aim absolutely a deliberate and knowledgeable attack on a purely civilian target ... not so much
→ More replies (3)1
u/SheenPSU 1h ago edited 1h ago
Didn’t they say they had old intel? That the building previously was a legit target
1
u/VaporousMote 3h ago
https://www.justsecurity.org/135423/professors-letter-international-law-iran-war/
I'd say there's a good chance you're wrong.
1
→ More replies (28)1
u/Agitated_Celery_729 29m ago
"Accidentally" It doesn't look very accidental when you lie about it half a dozen different ways before the blood is even fucking dry. Honest mistakes require it actually being a mistake. If you're trying to rationalize it after the fact to make excuses for why you did it, that isn't admitting to an honest mistake; that's covering up a crime.
6
3
u/UnhappyImprovement53 4h ago
Well someone just threatened to target civilian structures so we have more upcoming too.
3
3
u/Far-Chemical-707 4h ago
Crime requires intent. Accidents are not crimes. The bombing of the school was an accident based on bad, outdated intel. We were trying to hit whatever military target used to be there.
1
u/No-Bake-730 3h ago
Ah cool. So I can just be negligent and shoot my gun at people who aren't even trying to harm me? After that I'll just claim I had actually been aiming for a squirrel.
→ More replies (1)1
u/njVowsNow 2h ago
no, it was not. It was a stupidly orchestrated demonstration of GOP corporate testosterone.
3
u/tolgren 3h ago edited 1h ago
We probably have, but that wasn't. Accidentally killing civvies, if that even happened, isn't a crime.
It's also doubtful that anyone died at all in that attack. I doubt you noticed but the Palestinians in particular love to lie about that sort of thing, no reason Iran wouldn't.
12
u/APraxisPanda 4h ago
War crimes and systemic pedophilia for American elites as well...
→ More replies (4)
6
u/mikemflash 4h ago
If civilians were intentionally targeted, it's a war crime. Otherwise, it's the collateral damage that happens in every single armed conflict.
6
u/Financial_Rice_4807 4h ago
That is based on legal definitions. On Reddit, it is based on dislike for Trump.
2
14
u/njVowsNow 4h ago
Try "yesterday", last week, last month........
6
u/nunya_bidnes77 4h ago
Got examples?
4
u/dontTakeMeSerious6 3h ago
Over 100 us based international law experts have claimed the US is committing war crimes by targeting civilian infrastructure in Iran. The claims of “no quarter” is also speaking to a war crimes. Also the Minab school strike which killed 150+ school girls is suggested to be so reckless that it constitutes a war crime.
2
u/PlusBookkeeper8032 1h ago
I used to be a defender of the way the US conducts war because compared to other nations it's much better, but now seeing what they are targeting and even issuing public threats of war crimes, I can't really make that distinction anymore.
1
u/dontTakeMeSerious6 37m ago
I think Trump not very vaguely threatening nuclear annihilation closed the book of American virtue.
Amongst all the allegations he faces, this one is undeniable and completely bonkers that anyone could defend casually tweeting out a nuclear threat.
2
u/njVowsNow 4h ago
Please now. Do you listen to the news? You can start with Venezuela; bombing boats with zero proof that they were running drugs. Bombing a school and killing little kids. Bombing bridges, water plants.
→ More replies (6)1
u/nunya_bidnes77 3h ago
Right because fishing boats using out board motors in open water carrying big square bales of something in known drug smuggling routes are definitely not cartel related. Sure. "Those weren't bales of drugs! No, no, those were ever elusive square groupers! Those fish fetch quite the price per kilo!"
Bombing a school by mistake because it was on a military base and used to be a military building is not a war crime. Its just an unfortunate result of the enemy knowingly putting their own people in harm's way. Like Hamas storing munitions at hospitals and schools.
And you can bomb bridges and roads. If the military can and does use it, it can and will be targeted. As for the water plants, Iran is the one striking water plants in the Gulf countries currently.
→ More replies (5)6
u/Angsty-Panda 3h ago
the punishment for drug smuggling isnt instant death. they didn't get a trial. you're just going off "vibes"
3
u/nunya_bidnes77 3h ago
It is when the cartel is officially labeled a terrorist organization, making their members enemy combatants and legal targets.
2
u/Angsty-Panda 3h ago
think about what you just said. the government can label a group a terrorist organization, and is then able to kill people based on vague "evidence" that they're connected to that organization?
→ More replies (7)2
u/nunya_bidnes77 3h ago
I never said it was moral, did I? Or even that I agreed with it or not. I'm just telling you how and why they are doing it.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)1
u/weathercat4 3h ago
It's a stretch to argue they were combatants, but let's assume you're correct and they were combatants.
If they are combatants then you can legally hit them with a missile, however the survivors floating on debris are not combatants and striking them again is absolutely a war crime.
→ More replies (26)→ More replies (5)1
8
u/Own_Mess_6495 4h ago
Yes. Any nation that has attacked another at any point in history committed war crimes.
→ More replies (12)12
u/datguy753 4h ago
I believe OP is referring to modern rules of warfare, such as those outlined in the Geneva Convention, with (updates in) 1949. It outlines rules such as not targeting non-war related buildings (hosptials, schools, places of worship, etc.) and not harming unarmed civilians.
→ More replies (2)
11
9
u/hedge36 4h ago
I sincerely hope another smarter and more capable country starts arresting our leaders for their criminal acts, since we're incapable of handling such things ourselves.
12
u/Several-Buy-3017 🤔 4h ago
“Smarter and more capable country…” are you holding out for space aliens?
→ More replies (2)2
5
→ More replies (1)2
u/emperorjoe 4h ago
There is a reason nobody touches the leaders of nations with nuclear weapons, as it Would also lead to world war 3.
The US is also legally obligated to invade the hague if they attempt that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Protection_Act
→ More replies (4)
2
2
u/mostlyskeptic 4h ago
Targeting civilian infra is a war crime, Trump has been ordering its destruction since March. We are way past war crimes. This whole war is a war crime. But international law is useless when the country that use to enforce it is now the one breaking it.
2
u/Resident_Music_1431 4h ago
The Minab school bombing in Iran that killed 120 school girls? Yes. The bombing of civilian infrastructure including bridges and drinking water? Yes.
2
u/Several-Buy-3017 🤔 4h ago
That school was not intentionally targeted by the U.S. military. It was collateral damage. Now the 40,000 unarmed peaceful protestors in the streets of Iran who were gunned down by the IRGC, those were targeted attacks.
2
u/Micky_so_Fyne 3h ago
Yes, and not just in the last ten years. Much of it is publicly disclosed. A quick Google search can give you sites filled with lists of war crimes committed by the US dating back to the late 1800s.
But, since the forming of the UN in 1945, America has become the bulk of the global military force (most poignantly during and after the cold war) with significantly more overseas military bases than domestic military bases, and with guns and missiles pointed at every militarized nation in the world, including our allies. 🤷♀️ So, when we slaughter civilians, carpet bomb non-military structures and cities, torture, overthrow peaceful governments, etc, the rest of the world gets mad, makes a condemning statement, and then does absolutely nothing.
2
2
2
2
2
u/bullsonparade2025 1h ago
Extra-judicial murder on the high seas by Trump are direct violations of international law and constitute war crimes.
2
2
2
5
u/DNathanHilliard 4h ago
War crimes are relative. If you win, it wasn't a war crime. If you lose, it was definitely a war crime. If you're a superpower, it wasn't a war crime. If you're a backwater country who is disliked by a superpower, totally a war crime.
3
u/Ok-Concentrate636 4h ago edited 3h ago
No war crime is a war crime, its just that if you win the war, you most likely wont get prosecuted, if you lose you will, but if you are europe or US you must definitely wont get prosecuted because you are above the law
1
u/fifaloko 40m ago
It isn't that anyone is above the law. It is that the entire reason we have different countries is that different people believe in different ways of life. Because these differences exist across humanity it makes no sense to have 1 body who declares what is and is not allowed globally, if we could agree on that then we wouldn't need separate countries. Therefore the countries that are able to enforce a standard on others are the enforcement arm and they get to set and decide the rules. In a perfect world they would hold themselves accountable too, but we don't live in a perfect world. So you are stuck with either no one has the right to tell any other group of people what is acceptable or not and might makes right, or you have a system like you have today where the US and China basically decide what is allowed by their allies. The US and China aren't above the law they are the law in their hemisphere.
3
1
u/HeadBelt1527 4h ago
War crimes are a matter of record, easy to find violations if you look for them, whether or not they're prosecuted under the law is another matter. No shortage from Americans, that's why they passed a law that allows the US to invade the Hague if any are ever charged.
1
u/DNathanHilliard 3h ago
The only laws that exist are the ones that are enforced. The rest are just suggestions.
5
u/Medical_Original6290 4h ago
Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime and Trump and Pete have been doing exactly that. So YES.
1
u/Vip3r237 4h ago
Aerial laws are a little different
An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective; and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportionate and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
3
u/doctorpotterhead 4h ago
I thinking double tapping the children who survived the first strike counts.
2
u/GamemasterJeff 4h ago
It does. Intentionally targeting civilians is never allowed and is criminal by US law as well as international.
1
3
3
3
u/zdrums24 4h ago
Constantly. Its like people forgot the Iraq war and "enhanced interrogation." These are the same people, now with fewer safeguards due to the trump administrations obsession with ego and aeathetic over functionality.
3
u/Leather-Marketing478 4h ago
You could make an pretty valid argument every president this century has committed war crimes.
7
u/ikonoqlast 4h ago
America? No.
Some specific soldier? Probably
Hitting a school by accident because it used to be part of a military base and the intelligence was old is not a war crime. It's just unfortunate.
10
u/ActuaryLost9689 4h ago
Oh please. Bombing civilian boats "suspected" of carrying drugs. Then doing a second strike to finish off people hanging off the boat? When you can pick them up or arrest?
7
u/oskich 4h ago
They are bombing civilian infrastructure in Iran intentionally as we speak...
2
u/nunya_bidnes77 4h ago
That's not a war crime if it is or can be used by an enemy force. So roads, factories, bridges, rail lines, power stations, etc are all valid targets if they serve military purposes. What is not a valid target is purely civilian infrastructure like apartments, hospitals, schools, places of worship, water infrastructure, etc. Unless of course they become occupied by armed military forces at some point.
→ More replies (7)3
u/xdrag0nb0rnex 4h ago
If enemy combatants are using it, it's a valid Target of war.
7
u/Throwaway585811276 4h ago
Oh so if the enemy drinks water then it's valid to destroy all the water desalination plants in a country even if the civilian population relies on them?
You thought that's how this works?
2
u/rhino369 3h ago
No, there is a principle of "proportionality" that would forbid that. But you can certainly bomb power plants used to power factories of war and bridges used to move forced around.
The only times power plants and bridges aren't targeted in wars is when the enemy thinks they can capture them for their own use.
1
2
u/Pablo_petty_plastic 4h ago
We bombed a school full of girls. There is no justification
→ More replies (3)1
2
u/WorthMassive8132 3h ago
Trump literally just said we'd bomb a bridge or a plant for every ship stopped in the strait by Iran. Bombing civilian infrastructure is a war crime.
3
u/No-Strain4246 4h ago
Ahh the head in the sand defence. Be ignorant and reckless and you can never commit a crime!
→ More replies (3)1
u/Raddatatta 3h ago
But ordering the bombing of civilian boats and then attacking the people after the boat has been destroyed is specifically called out as a war crime.
3
u/DeliciousBaseball783 4h ago
Omg I knew the answer before I looked. It's reddit so you already know the majority of people here are left leaning idiots
→ More replies (7)2
u/Financial_Rice_4807 4h ago
Emotion and tribalism beat critical thinking every time.
→ More replies (6)
3
1
u/Kaddy7 4h ago
Probably, along with every other country inna war. Know what else we do? Interfer in foreign elections , like every other country.
→ More replies (5)4
u/all_reason_departs 4h ago
Very few countries actually overthrow democratically elected leaders like the US does
2
2
u/Yesbothsides 4h ago
Yes, Trump in Iran, Obama in Syria and a Libya, bush in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Everytime we engage in the Middle East we most often are breaking Geneva convention rules
2
2
2
2
u/Substantial_Hat_4590 3h ago
Fact is we also know the Iranian playbook so maybe blame them for using human shields
→ More replies (2)
1
1
u/PeaTasty9184 4h ago
Honestly, a decent lawyer could probably get them off on the schoolgirl murders. Apparently there used to be some kind of naval offices in that facility…of course military intelligence should have known the navy was there anymore…from a legal sense they have plausible deniability, just not moral forgiveness.
The intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure like bridges, water plants, and power plants? 100% undeniable war crimes.
1
u/Doredrin 4h ago
yes not launching napalm strikes on the various neo nazi rallys that have taken place
before I get banned for violence talk, it's perfectly acceptable on this site to call for violence to be done by a state actor
1
u/RumRunnerMax 4h ago
Absolutely! Pretty much every administration has committed technical war crimes! Obama famously “accidentally” dropped a bomb on a wedding celebration! And very aggressive assassinated many accused terrorists on someone else’s soil with no judicial review!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/EarthRocker2001 4h ago
In January of 2020, Trump launched a drone attack that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, their equivalent of Secretary of Defense, inside the Baghdad airport. Killing a government official in a third party country is a war crime as defined by the UN. So we re-elected a war criminal. Hence why they are actively trying to dismantle the International Criminal Court
1
1
1
1
u/marx42 4h ago
If you’re talking in a “legal” sense… Recognized war crimes REQUIRE intent. If they believed it was a valid military target and their info was wrong, etc (iirc the school building was formerly an IRGC base) then… it’s just considered a breech of international law.
But that changes if there was no due diligence or they were knowingly using outdated information.
1
u/soyel_cerdo 4h ago
The US and the west have massive propaganda and I’ll explain
The US blows up a school, they excuse it and the media follow along
Russia or China or Mexico blows up a school, the US government and the media say “war crime!”
In Russia/ukraine war. Russia attacks a college, it’s a war crime! Ukraine attacks a Russian college “it was needed.
And don’t get me started on the 1984 phrases like Russia is strong enough to invade Europe but weak enough Ukraine along can defeat it. See the logic in that? And that’s something you can see today in the news.
The US has plans to invade The Hague if they charge and capture an American accused of war crimes and that’s something documented.
The US had pardoned war criminals time and time again and that is well documented
1
1
u/learsi-ediconeg 4h ago
"… but killing 168 school children and teachers in Iran is probably a war crime."
probably? jesus
1
u/WITX89 4h ago
If you have evidence that this was intentional, then yes.
What appears to have happened is the IRGC has a military base next to a school and that was accidentally hit.
And yes, it has to be intentional for it to be a war crime. I'm not seeing something for negligently using bad information, so would be interested in seeing what the actual law states.
It appears that the school used to have military use, and the information was outdated. Or coordinates were wrong. Either of these would mean it was not intentional.
And no, targeting a hospital or protected building that is dual use as a military application is not a war crime. It is actually a war crime to use a protected building as a military use.
And back to the school - this seems like it used to be a military target, so it would be also interesting to see what the law says about converting previous military targets to protected building. That could also be a crime.
1
u/Manic_Mini 4h ago
The United States has not accepted the jurisdiction of an international court to prosecute its service members solely for Geneva Convention violations.
In practice, alleged violations by U.S. military personnel are generally investigated and prosecuted through the U.S. military justice system or U.S. federal courts.
1
1
u/sdega315 4h ago
To be clear... Threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure is itself a war crime. So, Yes, committing war crimes is now a daily part of our federal government.
1
u/SuperDuperHandsome 4h ago
War crimes are always committed.. all the time. this is not the only conflict in the world.
Also, no one knows what is really happening.
1
1
1
u/stogie-bear 4h ago
War crimes require intent. Intentionally killing civilians is a war crime but it’s not clear that this is what happened. The more likely scenario is that they made a mistake because they had incorrect information. The school was on land that used to be a military base and they didn’t have updated maps.
That said, I would not be at all surprised to see examples where Americans have committed war crimes over the last 10 years. I’m just saying that the Iranian school incident is not clear cut.
1
1
u/GoSmellTheRoses 4h ago
Try for the last 250 years unfortunately..... pretty shameful to be honest since we haven't really made a attempt at amends for the crimes this country committed
1
u/SEABOSRUN 4h ago
Since modern laws of war developed (Mid 1860's), the United States has been involved in conflicts where some of its forces have committed acts that have been classified as war crimes or serious violations of the laws of war.
There is not a single 10 year period what they haven't committed them.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Xullister 4h ago
Of course. Pretty much every country that goes to war gets credibly accused of war crimes. Trying to enforce rules on systematic murder will always be problematic.
The question, to me, is whether committing war crimes was a discrete screwup from troops on the ground or a broad policy of commanders in the base. Prior to Trump it was generally the former, but under Trump it's clearly a policy. And that deserves prosecution.
1
1
u/UknowImRight422 3h ago
Besides the financial, military and diplomatic support for the ongoing zionist final solution, for example?
1
1
1
u/Kosstheboss 3h ago
If you consider funding war crimes as committing war crimes, then absolutely yes.
1
1
u/Random_her0Idiot 3h ago
Times like these I wish America leaves the rest of the world alone. So I can read topics of people complaining about America should do this and that
1
1
1
1
1
u/Uhmattbravo 3h ago edited 2h ago
One school accidentally gets hit out of well over 11,000 strikes and the US is guilty of war crimes for it? So what are incidents like the fates of Masha Amini, and 30,000 fully intentionally executed civilian protesters, then? What about all the civilian targets Iran intentionally hit in neighboring Gulf States? Those are cool because the US accidentally hit one school out of over 11,000 strikes? That gives Iran a free pass for all the intentionally awful things the Iranian government does?
Unicef was reporting 1,100 children killed or injured in the conflict as of March. (https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/child-casualties-rise-amidst-deepening-middle-east-conflict) 168 were at that school. Who were the other 932? Do you care about those 932 that don't necessarily fuel an anti-US sentiment? Nope 932 souls that you couldn't be bothered to even think about because those 168 are the ones that help you push your narrative. Go make more Lego diss tracks, at least that was entertaining bullshit.
1
u/stormhawk427 3h ago
War crimes happen whenever there is a war. Whether or not those responsible are held accountable is another matter.
1
u/Appropriate_Word1469 3h ago
No, because only the losers commit war crimes, winners commit acceptable collateral damage
1
1
u/ryder242 3h ago
Considering how target selection and target packages are created, the school kids were not a war crime. The collateral damage estimation would have come back as there was no civilian usage of that building. The law of armed conflict would say that if we did not know before hand that the building had been converted to civilian usage, that the building was not market for civilian purpose, that just because civilians were killed does not make it a crime.
Now the actual question you asked is a false analogy, a begging the question and appeal to emotion fallacy. Iran is purposely tying to kill civilians, while the US is not. Civilians die during war, their death is not a crime until it self.
1
u/Dull-Geologist-8204 3h ago
Have we been in a war? Yes, so the answer is yes. Welcome to war that is how it looks and no matter what war we are talking about, US involment or not, war crimes happen. All of them, every single war, war crimes happen.
1
u/Spiritual_Pangolin_4 3h ago
I would be surprised if we’ve gone a year without committing war crimes
1
u/joegtech 3h ago
Accidents will happen, more of them will happen when the religious fanatics in the Middle East build a bunker under a hospital or school to store rockets they will fire at neighborhoods.
The Iranian regime killed tens of thousands of protesters. They had good reason to complain since there was a water shortage but the regime spends piles of money on weapons but does not provide adequate amounts of water for the people.
1
u/Kind-Realist 3h ago
There seems to be a lot of debate in this thread regarding the specific example you gave. I don’t think the “war crime” label really matters on that one, since it seems to have still been incompetence, which I would argue is just as bad (we shouldn’t be bombing stuff if we can’t confirm we’re at least using our most up to date intel before we press the button).
That said: yes, the US has committed very clear war crimes in the past year.
1) bombing civilian boats in the Gulf of Mexico
2) bombing survivors of those boat bombings
3) bombing bridges and other civilian infrastructure in Iran
4) double tap bombing civilian infrastructure specifically to target rescue workers
The current administration is full of monsters who are doing the most bad and I only hope nobody retaliates with a specific goal of harming US civilians, but I also can’t say I would be surprised if they do. We are going to have the day we voted for (I didn’t vote for it, but enough people did that we probably deserve the humbling).
1
u/Greyhand13 3h ago
Do you know how many civilians we killed in the war on terror? War on drugs? A metric fck-ton.
Also that last part we just started calling terrorism and using it to justify an increase in Force
1
u/mparks37 3h ago
That was clearly a mistake, so is not a war crime. You would have to prove it is an ongoing pattern of targeting civilians, specifically, or a pattern of carelessness. As we have not seen any other mention of significant civilian deaths, even from the IRGC, you would have a near impossible time proving it is a warcrime. Dead people does not = war crime in a war, and it belittles real war crimes and makes people less likely to believe your propaganda in the future to pretend it does.
1
1
1
u/Ok-Prompt-59 2h ago
Any country that has engaged in war or conflict over the last 100 years has committed war crimes. It’s impossible no to. Especially in a guerrilla scenario.
1
u/oneninesixthree 59m ago
Yes, lots. It's really bad.
Here's a cool not at all upsetting fact for you: there is an American law that says the USA is allowed to invade The Hague if an American is being held by the ICC.
1
u/andymacdaddy 51m ago
Still waiting for the retribution for the whole weapons of mass destruction thing
1
1
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator 4h ago
We want your input on how to handle political questions in our community.
This takes about 1 minute.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.