I dont think requiring a colloquial use of war crime to adhere to what actions a country has legally agreed to take is very useful.
Like arguing its only murder if the state said it was illegal.
With a word bandied about like the on a topic like this, war crime should be used by the accurate definition is rather than changing is meaning to score political point. That's what conservative groups like Fox News does to shift the argument in their favour by altering the meanings of words so hey can justify any stance. It devalues the actual meaning and diminishes the atrocity war crimes are in the real world. Since war crimes are a legal definition, so what? The government murdering families with drones remains an immoral act to attack them on. Which would be technically correct, especially since this is about foreign policy - where states define laws. Not all laws created are right but they can't be brushed aside like its nothing on something so barbaric as war crimes.
You have precisely zero problem calling state sanctioned police executions murders despite it failing to meet the legal definition so no I don't think I'll do this.
But I know that isn't a real legal definition, I don't pretend like it is. I don't need it when I have moral high ground, so why isn't hat acceptable over legal semantics? Is not like your argument won't have emotional teeth - its drones murdering families, it being a legal war crime is semantics too that end. Morality should be above using specific words that don't match up with what's being presented. The word "war crimes" shouldn't be a cudgel in itself, is lazy and disrespectful to actual war crimes.
Its easy to hide truths behind calls for nuance or semantic accuracy.
Its also easy to create a false narrative hough propaganda which abuses the English language for an agenda, Fox News are experts at doing this. Nuance and semantics shouldn't be disregarded so quickly o win an argument on the internet. I'm not a fan of using Fox News tactics.
There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
This is why the legality of terms like "war crime" mattered here. Because a scenario was brought up where it would. You aren't going to literally take presidents to trial over some mere colloquial term. As soon as we've moved on from trying Presidents the distinction becomes irrelevant.
I do have to say though, if war is necessarily so messy, why is it desirable for these administrations to do their damndest to hide that from the American public. Which is the information this person actually got in trouble for sharing. Maybe people would be less outraged at surgical strikes not being so surgical if the American military wasn't pretending like they were.
There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
This is why the legality of terms like "war crime" mattered here. Because a scenario was brought up where it would. You aren't going to literally take presidents to trial over some mere colloquial term. As soon as we've moved on from trying Presidents the distinction becomes irrelevant.
I do have to say though, if war is necessarily so messy, why is it desirable for these administrations to do their damndest to hide that from the American public. Which is the information this person actually got in trouble for sharing. Maybe people would be less outraged at surgical strikes not being so surgical if the American military wasn't pretending like they were.
Well its a catch-22 isn't it? Intentionally obfuscating the true(ly flawed) accuracy of our weapons technology is part of what goes into manufacturing consent -- its a lot easier to get a general public acceptance to engage in drone warfare if the average American thinks that its mostly only bad guys that get to meet a untimely ends and ultimately that's at least partially what informed the thinking that motivated the classification of all of age males in the strike zone as military combatants.
+6
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
The other way to dilute the gravitas of the phrase, ‘war crimes’ is to carve out exceptions and invent weasel words so it doesn’t apply to your team
I assume this at me, care to explain how I'm doing this? My stance is that war crimes being used by is legal definition. Who is 'my team'? I'm against war crimes and agreed the government drone striking families was morally abhorrent.
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
First hit on Google indicates he posted some wild shit here over a decade ago.
So, for clarity, is that an incorrect assessment?
Or was he shitting up the Chat threads a couple of months ago or something?
Frankly, there are some members and views that I think the mods show an 'above and beyond' level of tolerance for, but they've been pretty good about showing actual toxicity the door.
Saying 'he came from here' doesn't mean much without context on how long he was here and how much he got away with. I'm sure plenty of people who have done and said vile things have come through here. Same can be said of any site one can freely sign up for, and probably all of the paid/exclusive ones as well.
I've been here nearly two decades and I think this is the first time I'm hearing of it. Maybe he was hyper active in a subforum I'm not a regular member of, hence the question. You know, before someone jumps up my ass.
Edit: found the answer by digging a little deeper. Last post over a decade ago, 600 posts is almost quaint. Some of y'all put out 600 posts a week (though further reading indicates he was also a treasure in the PA Steam chat as well, and elsewhere I'm sure).
But yes, I agree that people who are just the worst have been among the community, and there likely are some dipshits among us to this day.
>.>
<.<
That's still not the same thing as directly contrasting the forums with the various chans in an unflattering light.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
I suppose i would object to characterizing war crime apologists as alt-right since apologism for us war crimes is a fairly mainstream position
That's my thought too. As much as I wish America would tone it the fuck down with negligence in their warfare, at almost all levels, screaming for former Presidents to get sent to the Hague might be a valid feeling, but a very much minority one amongst the American citizenry who elect them, and the people (following administrations) that would hold them to account.
I doubt polling for a generic President being charged with war crimes for negligent homicides due to air/drone strikes would hit double digits. You might find that a shitty thing, but it is the political reality of the current state of American politics. Even if you included partisanship, you're not hitting close to a majority.
+6
Options
ShivahnUnaware of her barrel shifter privilegeWestern coastal temptressRegistered User, Moderatormod
I can see that my last post was confusing, so let me clarify: when discussing prosecution or other legal matters, it is important to know the legal definition of a war crime. That is the only context in which people should be discussing language instead of actual foreign policy.
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
No, he posted here for a few years and was shown the door over a decade ago.
I can see that my last post was confusing, so let me clarify: when discussing prosecution or other legal matters, it is important to know the legal definition of a war crime. That is the only context in which people should be discussing language instead of actual foreign policy.
My point has been that the United States has, is, and presumably will continue to commit war crimes as they are understood under international law even if the United States tries to deny that they are war crimes.
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
No, he posted here for a few years and was shown the door over a decade ago.
He wasn't shown anything, that ban was from last September and was essentially a joke.
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
No, he posted here for a few years and was shown the door over a decade ago.
He wasn't shown anything, that ban was from last September and was essentially a joke.
The point that started this all was contrasting the forums with someone awful who posted here, as representative of alt right ideology. “The call is coming from inside the house” style.
Joke ban or not, their last post was a decade ago.
So trying to use them as a representative of the awful that may be in our midst seems a bit dated.
There are no doubts that people who have said and done some wrong or bad or perhaps even reprehensible, but “*chan alt right” doesn’t seem like a fair descriptor of the general tenor or culture of the forums.
I don’t think the admin/mod team has been quite that lax.
This is also getting off topic of foreign policy, but also feels reflective of how complicated something as simple as a video game forum culture can get, let alone disparate nations trying to sort their shit out.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Now before any alt-right war crime apologists jump in and say 'it's not a war crime because the US govt doesn't view 90% innocent civilians being murdered as a war crime' why don't you save that argument for h8chan. It's the same type of crap you hear from police brutality apologists (yes, nine civilians were murdered by cops, but they also killed one bad guy!). It's fucking disgusting. There should be a post-war Nuremburg trial, and yes, Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden all need to be put up on the stand for KNOWINGLY signing off on these strikes with appalling civilian death rates.
You want to know why the US has been losing in Iraq and Afghanistan? It's because we've been murdering innocent people over there for two decades. Then knowingly covering it up and prosecuting anyone who reveals the truth. Nazi scum tactics never work.
Ah yes who could forget the well known prolific alt-right war crime apologist PA forum members who also frequent 8chan.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
No, he posted here for a few years and was shown the door over a decade ago.
He wasn't shown anything, that ban was from last September and was essentially a joke.
[citation needed] I guess because the only reference I and presumably others could find was an account banned in 2011
Really though if you feel I'm being unfair you're probably right because his posting here was at least a few years before he became a full on fash wannabe grifter. That one of the most well known ex-forumers was the guy who wrote "Incel Corner" for Milo's website and claimed that Robocop wasn't political is mostly an amusing anecdote in response to the idea that the alt-right can't be here.
This alt right piece of shit you're talking about hasn't been here for ten years and as far as I know we don't have a policy of relentlessly monitoring dormant accounts for shitbaggery elsewhere and then banning them, so sorry we were late I guess. Regardless, this turd isn't on topic so move on.
So the US, Britain, and Australia signed some military agreement that includes the US providing nuclear submarines to Australia, presumably for anti-China reasons.
France reacted with fury on Thursday to President Biden’s announcement of a deal to help Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines, calling it a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” that resembled the rash and sudden policy shifts common during the Trump administration.
The angry words from Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, in an interview with Franceinfo radio, followed an official statement from him and Florence Parly, the minister of the Armed Forces, calling “the American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France” a “regrettable decision” that “shows a lack of coherence.”
...
“This is not done between allies,” Mr. Le Drian said.
...
“To confront China, the United States appears to have chosen a different alliance, with the Anglo-Saxon world confronting France.” [An expert on American-French relations] predicted a “very hard” period in the old friendship between Paris and Washington.
...
“A knife in the back,” Mr. Le Drian said of the Australian decision
Paris's impotent rage mostly stems from the fact that they had their own $66 billion submarine deal with Australia, which has now been abruptly scrapped in favor of the US deal, which the French (or EU generally) were not previously informed about. It's an interesting development, and the quoted analyst's view that the Biden administration has chosen to strengthen US/UK/Australian bonds at the expense of relations with the EU is intriguing as well.
So the US, Britain, and Australia signed some military agreement that includes the US providing nuclear submarines to Australia, presumably for anti-China reasons.
France reacted with fury on Thursday to President Biden’s announcement of a deal to help Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines, calling it a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” that resembled the rash and sudden policy shifts common during the Trump administration.
The angry words from Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, in an interview with Franceinfo radio, followed an official statement from him and Florence Parly, the minister of the Armed Forces, calling “the American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France” a “regrettable decision” that “shows a lack of coherence.”
...
“This is not done between allies,” Mr. Le Drian said.
...
“To confront China, the United States appears to have chosen a different alliance, with the Anglo-Saxon world confronting France.” [An expert on American-French relations] predicted a “very hard” period in the old friendship between Paris and Washington.
...
“A knife in the back,” Mr. Le Drian said of the Australian decision
Paris's impotent rage mostly stems from the fact that they had their own $66 billion submarine deal with Australia, which has now been abruptly scrapped in favor of the US deal, which the French (or EU generally) were not previously informed about. It's an interesting development, and the quoted analyst's view that the Biden administration has chosen to strengthen US/UK/Australian bonds at the expense of relations with the EU is intriguing as well.
Australia’s 12 new attack-class submarines – Australia’s largest military acquisition in its history – were originally slated to cost between $40 billion and $50 billion. According to the latest projections they will now cost about $90 billion to build and $145 billion to maintain over their life cycle. Despite the fact former prime minister Tony Abbott promised the first of the submarines would be in the water by the mid-2020s, it is now not scheduled to become operational until the mid-2030s.
In the current debate on Australia’s submarine debacle, French-bashing has been all the rage. And with French builder Naval Group’s cost blowouts, schedule slippages and dubious commitments on meeting local content requirements – it’s been an easy sport. But it’s worth asking: would we have arrived at this point regardless of which bidder we chose? After all, Defence’s acquisition debacles are not confined to French-designed submarines.
The transition from the Oberons to Collins was badly botched – the first Collins was commissioned to the Royal Australian Navy in 1996, 18 months behind schedule. Despite this, based on international benchmarks, the Collins fleet is now seen as a well-performing fleet in terms of availability.
And it’s not just submarines where there are inherent problems. The government this year announced an 18-month delay to the $45 billion Future Frigate program, meaning the first frigate will not be in service until 2033.
In Minchin’s view, the rot set way back in the 1980s, as a bipartisan view formed that Defence’s major acquisitions must be built in Australia.
“The real problem goes back to the decision in relation to the Collins where frankly it was driven by industry policy and regional employment policy, rather than strict defence capability criteria. That is really the beginning of our problems with submarines.”
Regardless of the blame, unsatisfied customers tend to go somewhere else, so France shouldn't be surprised of this outcome.
Also, Australia may be treating this as a matter of urgency for some reason.
TryCatcher on
+10
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
How many nuke subs do the French have? And how far along was the Aussie/French program?
Like, these kinds of deals don't typically get scuttled once they actually get started. This sounds like someone got played pretty badly.
I'm mostly surprised that the French weren't made aware of the deal prior to its public announcement. That seems unnecessarily abrasive on a diplomatic level.
+4
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Oh, the French were offering diesel boats, not nukes. Yeah that's sorta no contest.
I'm mostly surprised that the French weren't made aware of the deal prior to its public announcement. That seems unnecessarily abrasive on a diplomatic level.
Oh they were probably 100% aware but couldn't do anything about it before hand and decided it was better to complain later.
+13
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
I'm mostly surprised that the French weren't made aware of the deal prior to its public announcement. That seems unnecessarily abrasive on a diplomatic level.
US and French relations in the nuclear age have long been weird and opaque. We were fine with them helping Israel get its nuclear program off the ground on the down low, but balked at them doing anything in the commercial (not even military) sector for the Shah while being completely transparent about it only being for residential power needs.
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
The unit cost for Virginia classes was $2.9b-3.4 if you give it the medium range ballistic missile option; so 7.5b per for diesel electric boats seems insane and the long term operating costs have to be much better not paying for fuel.
The unit cost for Virginia classes was $2.9b-3.4 if you give it the medium range ballistic missile option; so 7.5b per for diesel electric boats seems insane and the long term operating costs have to be much better not paying for fuel.
It's bad, but not quite that bad. That's A$7.5b, which is a little under $5.5b.
The unit cost for Virginia classes was $2.9b-3.4 if you give it the medium range ballistic missile option; so 7.5b per for diesel electric boats seems insane and the long term operating costs have to be much better not paying for fuel.
It's bad, but not quite that bad. That's A$7.5b, which is a little under $5.5b.
How many nuke subs do the French have? And how far along was the Aussie/French program?
Like, these kinds of deals don't typically get scuttled once they actually get started. This sounds like someone got played pretty badly.
The Australian project was nowhere along, in the people were signing deals to maintain and retrofit the Collins class for another 15 years sort of way.
The history of Australian submarine fleets has always been troubled: the problem is while diesel-electrics have some advantages, the reality of our geopolitical position is we're never going to need that capability compared to doing basically whatever to support the US alliance which is our real strategic goal.
0
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
The unit cost for Virginia classes was $2.9b-3.4 if you give it the medium range ballistic missile option; so 7.5b per for diesel electric boats seems insane and the long term operating costs have to be much better not paying for fuel.
I mean long term you're still paying for fuel, you're just going out ten years at a time when you RCOH.
So the US, Britain, and Australia signed some military agreement that includes the US providing nuclear submarines to Australia, presumably for anti-China reasons.
France reacted with fury on Thursday to President Biden’s announcement of a deal to help Australia deploy nuclear-powered submarines, calling it a “unilateral, brutal, unpredictable decision” that resembled the rash and sudden policy shifts common during the Trump administration.
The angry words from Jean-Yves Le Drian, the foreign minister, in an interview with Franceinfo radio, followed an official statement from him and Florence Parly, the minister of the Armed Forces, calling “the American choice to exclude a European ally and partner such as France” a “regrettable decision” that “shows a lack of coherence.”
...
“This is not done between allies,” Mr. Le Drian said.
...
“To confront China, the United States appears to have chosen a different alliance, with the Anglo-Saxon world confronting France.” [An expert on American-French relations] predicted a “very hard” period in the old friendship between Paris and Washington.
...
“A knife in the back,” Mr. Le Drian said of the Australian decision
Paris's impotent rage mostly stems from the fact that they had their own $66 billion submarine deal with Australia, which has now been abruptly scrapped in favor of the US deal, which the French (or EU generally) were not previously informed about. It's an interesting development, and the quoted analyst's view that the Biden administration has chosen to strengthen US/UK/Australian bonds at the expense of relations with the EU is intriguing as well.
Wouldn’t say it’s gonna be entirely impotent. Australia has been negotiating a trade agreement with the EU with supposed French help, and the French parliament was expected to ratify it.
Will be an interesting one to watch play out, one of those rare foreign policy dramas that’s kinda fun to watch since no lives are stake, just grand questions like “Europe’s role in the Pacific” and stuff like that. It’s been funny to watch normally cool French diplomats break out the forbidden words box.
There was supposed to be a big gala at the French Embassy here in DC tonight to celebrate the French Navy's participation in the Revolutionary War. The top French naval officer was flown in and a French military ship in Baltimore was also holding an event on board. The entire thing has been canceled at the last minute and the naval officer was flown home really early.
There was supposed to be a big gala at the French Embassy here in DC tonight to celebrate the French Navy's participation in the Revolutionary War. The top French naval officer was flown in and a French military ship in Baltimore was also holding an event on board. The entire thing has been canceled at the last minute and the naval officer was flown home really early.
However, Mr Dutton said he was not sorry for dumping the French submarines for a better deal.
"In the end, I don't make any apologies for making a decision that's in our country's best interest," Mr Dutton said.
"We do live in an uncertain time and the advice to me was very clear that the nuclear sub was a much better platform for us than what the French were offering."
Mr Dutton did not offer a precise cost for cancelling the French contract, but suggested it would be more than $2 billion.
"It is an expensive business," he said. "You don't get peace and security for free."
Bonus chinese complaining that nuclear power means that the US is selling Australia nukes:
It has emerged that the announcement of the new partnership, dubbed AUKUS, and the plans to acquire nuclear-powered submarines have also angered China, which was not mentioned by any leader during the video conference but is seen by the West as the main security concern in the region.
"The export of highly sensitive nuclear submarine technology by the United States and Britain to Australia once again proves that they use nuclear exports as a tool of geopolitical games and adopt double standards, which is extremely irresponsible," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said during a press briefing.
He added that the deal gave regional countries "reason to question Australia's sincerity in abiding by its nuclear non-proliferation commitments".
That's not how nuclear tech works, and Australia wants those subs because China has been on an aggresive diplomatic bent since last year, what did they expect?
There was supposed to be a big gala at the French Embassy here in DC tonight to celebrate the French Navy's participation in the Revolutionary War. The top French naval officer was flown in and a French military ship in Baltimore was also holding an event on board. The entire thing has been canceled at the last minute and the naval officer was flown home really early.
What a bunch of babies.
like the US wouldn't if the shoe was on the other foot
There was supposed to be a big gala at the French Embassy here in DC tonight to celebrate the French Navy's participation in the Revolutionary War. The top French naval officer was flown in and a French military ship in Baltimore was also holding an event on board. The entire thing has been canceled at the last minute and the naval officer was flown home really early.
What a bunch of babies.
like the US wouldn't if the shoe was on the other foot
Maybe. But that and fiery language like "stab on the back" for what is first and foremost an argument about money is vastly overdramatic. This is just an oversized version of what happens every time that a company or a local government decides that they rather suck it up and pay the severance fee than keep working with a particular contractor.
Again, Australian press was blasting this contract for months, so it was no particular secret that the australians were very unsatisfied customers. The french could have done something about it. They didn't, well, that's on them isn't it?
TryCatcher on
+8
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
France has been pissed that they're not taken seriously as a big-dick preeminent world power military that everyone has to be delicate about crossing since de Gaulle. None of this is new, it's just a very public sting to their pride.
Yeah, France is definitely huffing and puffing very hard about this. But between contractor screwups and getting objectively better equipment, it's not hard to see why Australia is doing this. Nor why the US is.
China complaining about nukes is just the usual nonsense of course - these are attack subs, they carry torpedos and exist to sink ships specifically. They have nuclear reactors because it turns out nuclear powered subs can just stay underwater and hidden for months at a time (iirc diesel subs need to surface for air every so often?)
Posts
But I know that isn't a real legal definition, I don't pretend like it is. I don't need it when I have moral high ground, so why isn't hat acceptable over legal semantics? Is not like your argument won't have emotional teeth - its drones murdering families, it being a legal war crime is semantics too that end. Morality should be above using specific words that don't match up with what's being presented. The word "war crimes" shouldn't be a cudgel in itself, is lazy and disrespectful to actual war crimes.
Its also easy to create a false narrative hough propaganda which abuses the English language for an agenda, Fox News are experts at doing this. Nuance and semantics shouldn't be disregarded so quickly o win an argument on the internet. I'm not a fan of using Fox News tactics.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
This is why the legality of terms like "war crime" mattered here. Because a scenario was brought up where it would. You aren't going to literally take presidents to trial over some mere colloquial term. As soon as we've moved on from trying Presidents the distinction becomes irrelevant.
I do have to say though, if war is necessarily so messy, why is it desirable for these administrations to do their damndest to hide that from the American public. Which is the information this person actually got in trouble for sharing. Maybe people would be less outraged at surgical strikes not being so surgical if the American military wasn't pretending like they were.
Well its a catch-22 isn't it? Intentionally obfuscating the true(ly flawed) accuracy of our weapons technology is part of what goes into manufacturing consent -- its a lot easier to get a general public acceptance to engage in drone warfare if the average American thinks that its mostly only bad guys that get to meet a untimely ends and ultimately that's at least partially what informed the thinking that motivated the classification of all of age males in the strike zone as military combatants.
I mean ian miles cheong came from here.
I assume this at me, care to explain how I'm doing this? My stance is that war crimes being used by is legal definition. Who is 'my team'? I'm against war crimes and agreed the government drone striking families was morally abhorrent.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol69/iss1/7/
https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2116&context=student_scholarship
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2013/10/usa-must-be-held-account-drone-killings-pakistan/
https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/10/22/between-drone-and-al-qaeda/civilian-cost-us-targeted-killings-yemen
So we don't need to argue about colloquial definitions or whatever, US policy under Obama and Trump violates the legal definitions as well.
First hit on Google indicates he posted some wild shit here over a decade ago.
So, for clarity, is that an incorrect assessment?
Or was he shitting up the Chat threads a couple of months ago or something?
Frankly, there are some members and views that I think the mods show an 'above and beyond' level of tolerance for, but they've been pretty good about showing actual toxicity the door.
Saying 'he came from here' doesn't mean much without context on how long he was here and how much he got away with. I'm sure plenty of people who have done and said vile things have come through here. Same can be said of any site one can freely sign up for, and probably all of the paid/exclusive ones as well.
I've been here nearly two decades and I think this is the first time I'm hearing of it. Maybe he was hyper active in a subforum I'm not a regular member of, hence the question. You know, before someone jumps up my ass.
Edit: found the answer by digging a little deeper. Last post over a decade ago, 600 posts is almost quaint. Some of y'all put out 600 posts a week (though further reading indicates he was also a treasure in the PA Steam chat as well, and elsewhere I'm sure).
But yes, I agree that people who are just the worst have been among the community, and there likely are some dipshits among us to this day.
>.>
<.<
That's still not the same thing as directly contrasting the forums with the various chans in an unflattering light.
That's my thought too. As much as I wish America would tone it the fuck down with negligence in their warfare, at almost all levels, screaming for former Presidents to get sent to the Hague might be a valid feeling, but a very much minority one amongst the American citizenry who elect them, and the people (following administrations) that would hold them to account.
I doubt polling for a generic President being charged with war crimes for negligent homicides due to air/drone strikes would hit double digits. You might find that a shitty thing, but it is the political reality of the current state of American politics. Even if you included partisanship, you're not hitting close to a majority.
No, he posted here for a few years and was shown the door over a decade ago.
My point has been that the United States has, is, and presumably will continue to commit war crimes as they are understood under international law even if the United States tries to deny that they are war crimes.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
He wasn't shown anything, that ban was from last September and was essentially a joke.
The point that started this all was contrasting the forums with someone awful who posted here, as representative of alt right ideology. “The call is coming from inside the house” style.
Joke ban or not, their last post was a decade ago.
So trying to use them as a representative of the awful that may be in our midst seems a bit dated.
There are no doubts that people who have said and done some wrong or bad or perhaps even reprehensible, but “*chan alt right” doesn’t seem like a fair descriptor of the general tenor or culture of the forums.
I don’t think the admin/mod team has been quite that lax.
This is also getting off topic of foreign policy, but also feels reflective of how complicated something as simple as a video game forum culture can get, let alone disparate nations trying to sort their shit out.
[citation needed] I guess because the only reference I and presumably others could find was an account banned in 2011
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/42902009/#Comment_42902009
Really though if you feel I'm being unfair you're probably right because his posting here was at least a few years before he became a full on fash wannabe grifter. That one of the most well known ex-forumers was the guy who wrote "Incel Corner" for Milo's website and claimed that Robocop wasn't political is mostly an amusing anecdote in response to the idea that the alt-right can't be here.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
France is very angry about this.
Paris's impotent rage mostly stems from the fact that they had their own $66 billion submarine deal with Australia, which has now been abruptly scrapped in favor of the US deal, which the French (or EU generally) were not previously informed about. It's an interesting development, and the quoted analyst's view that the Biden administration has chosen to strengthen US/UK/Australian bonds at the expense of relations with the EU is intriguing as well.
Note that the French deal has been routinely blasted on the Australian press for increased prices and delays:
Regardless of the blame, unsatisfied customers tend to go somewhere else, so France shouldn't be surprised of this outcome.
Also, Australia may be treating this as a matter of urgency for some reason.
Like, these kinds of deals don't typically get scuttled once they actually get started. This sounds like someone got played pretty badly.
Oh they were probably 100% aware but couldn't do anything about it before hand and decided it was better to complain later.
US and French relations in the nuclear age have long been weird and opaque. We were fine with them helping Israel get its nuclear program off the ground on the down low, but balked at them doing anything in the commercial (not even military) sector for the Shah while being completely transparent about it only being for residential power needs.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
It's bad, but not quite that bad. That's A$7.5b, which is a little under $5.5b.
Still more! Wtf
The Australian project was nowhere along, in the people were signing deals to maintain and retrofit the Collins class for another 15 years sort of way.
The history of Australian submarine fleets has always been troubled: the problem is while diesel-electrics have some advantages, the reality of our geopolitical position is we're never going to need that capability compared to doing basically whatever to support the US alliance which is our real strategic goal.
I mean long term you're still paying for fuel, you're just going out ten years at a time when you RCOH.
Wouldn’t say it’s gonna be entirely impotent. Australia has been negotiating a trade agreement with the EU with supposed French help, and the French parliament was expected to ratify it.
Will be an interesting one to watch play out, one of those rare foreign policy dramas that’s kinda fun to watch since no lives are stake, just grand questions like “Europe’s role in the Pacific” and stuff like that. It’s been funny to watch normally cool French diplomats break out the forbidden words box.
What a bunch of babies.
Bonus chinese complaining that nuclear power means that the US is selling Australia nukes:
That's not how nuclear tech works, and Australia wants those subs because China has been on an aggresive diplomatic bent since last year, what did they expect?
like the US wouldn't if the shoe was on the other foot
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe. But that and fiery language like "stab on the back" for what is first and foremost an argument about money is vastly overdramatic. This is just an oversized version of what happens every time that a company or a local government decides that they rather suck it up and pay the severance fee than keep working with a particular contractor.
Again, Australian press was blasting this contract for months, so it was no particular secret that the australians were very unsatisfied customers. The french could have done something about it. They didn't, well, that's on them isn't it?
China complaining about nukes is just the usual nonsense of course - these are attack subs, they carry torpedos and exist to sink ships specifically. They have nuclear reactors because it turns out nuclear powered subs can just stay underwater and hidden for months at a time (iirc diesel subs need to surface for air every so often?)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Keep this up, everyone, it's so much nicer than the alternative.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile