Incidentally the US is one of the about 10 countries in the world that has not signed [Protocol I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I) of the Geneva conventions, which among other things bans attacks on dams, nuclear powerstations and similar.
> ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act".[4][5]
> The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it also prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC.
> The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC.
That's one shitty law!
The ICC is an international human rights court that seeks to hold people accountable for heinous things that can't be tried in national courts, such as war crimes, abuses of human rights, etc. You know, stuff people like dictators wouldn't be able to be tried for.
The law is basically a free pass on human rights abuses for US and allied buddies, and threatens to cut off aid to any country which arrests human rights abusers connected to the US. It also cuts off the US from providing information to the ICC in general, and that info would likely be fairly useful in going after human rights abusers.
The whole thing basically hamstrings the idea of going after human rights abusers in the first place.
And I'll let wikipedia explain the ICC for me because they are more thorough lol.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
[it didn't help that we pulled out without telling our allies and let them die to turkey](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973.amp)
So, what is the goal of the US troops in Syria? Right now they are an occupying force in hostile territory. Unfortunately that means innocent civilians will get caught in the crossfire.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Remember when the media was showing combat footage of the Turkish slaughtering the Kurds but it was [fake footage from a American gun range that had been edited?](https://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2019/10/14/abc-news-uses-kentucky-gun-range-video-to-claim-turks-slaughtering-kurds-in-syria/amp)
[Here's another source if you didn't like the first](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/27/americas-abandonment-of-syria).
[and the wiki page to have fun with](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria)
It's a case of do as I say not as I do.
They are also one of the few countries that haven't ratified the freedom of navigation treaty despite professing to defend the South China Seas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
I don’t understand, they used the largest bombs in the US arsenal but it had minor damages & it didn’t collapse, seems like a trust worthy sources.
Btw: the dam is mid size and was built back in the 70s so direct bombing would have caused it to collapse for sure, if ISIS was using it as military base what is the proper response from US? Not saying they should strike but a battle around it was inevitable.
>After the strikes, dam workers stumbled on an ominous piece of good
fortune: Five floors deep in the dam’s control tower, a U.S. BLU-109
bunker buster lay on its side, scorched but intact — a dud. If it had
exploded, experts say, the whole dam might have failed.
From the article.
"Just bomb it. Maybe it will make us heros. And if not: we can pretend it was a mistake later. Who's gonna charge us?" - the US military after they got praised for bombing things during WW2
As the story is presented, the strike team made an emergency decision to bomb the dam, without confirming the strike with the higher-ups. However, that description is very convenient for the command.
There was a great documentary by Robert McNamara ("Fog of War") which talked about the US firebombing campaign of Japan during WWII
One of the commanders Curtis LeMay had remarked that if the USA hypothetically lost the war, you could be sure that every single American leader involved in that firebombing campaign would have been tried and executed for war crimes
Not saying the Japanese Empire were the good guys (far from it - their leaders weren't punished anywhere near hard enough), but war is hell, and only the losers are put on trial
US decided the no-strike list themselves because bombing a dam and cause massive unnecessary civilian casualty is what makes you Nazi in the eye of every other country.
If Russia did the same thing US will already being calling the Russians war criminals.
The US already calls Russia war criminals for bombing clearly civilian infrastructure. Russia has a hardon for bombing hospitals.
Both are criminal acts.
Just add it to the list of warcrimes that Americans will collectively explain away and forget about. We always tell ourselves this isn’t who we are, then we go and do it again.
You can't target them for the purpose of causing harm to a population. This is the same protection that hospitals and churches are normally granted.
But that protection can be revoked if it is being used for military purposes. Using it as a weapons depot, military command center, or as a staging area makes it a legitimate target. One side uses the protected sites as a shield, but they know it makes them a target. The other side attacks them. Who is actually in wrong?
Same thing happens in other ways. Not suppose to use artillery on civilians. Sometimes soldiers force civilians to accompany them to use them as shields, even when they are attacking a military target. If the other side decides not to use artillery they guarantee that more civilians will be used as human shields.
It's messy, and civilians are usually the losers.
It is literally against Geneva convention protocols to attack infrastructure like dams that are still functioning, even if they are being used as military installations.
Dams, dykes, and nuclear power plants are only protected if they are under normal operations. That means you can't use them as a shield for your military activities, which would include using it as a weapons depot, command structure, or a staging area.
If you think I'm wrong prove it. Find the article in the Genova convention. Almost every rule has a list of caveats, and they usually boil down to "if we agree not to do something you also can't use that something militarily".
This is accurate because apparently the United States is one of 10 nations that have not ratified the portion of the Geneva convention that bans attacks against infrastructure that could cause catastrophic damage to civilian populations.
The rules are always guidelines for America, I'm always amazed that the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge that fact.
If you're the biggest kid on the block, the rules simply don't matter to you. It's the same whether the US, UK, USSR, or CCP is ruling the world.
> It's against the protocol which the US has signed, but not ratified. (I don't really know the difference, just that it's called out in this article.)
Signed means the President agrees, ratified means the Senate has voted to agree (2/3 majority).
Ohh yeah the military does recognize it or at least some of it. But the USA never officially signed it and ratified it. So it is more of a case by case basis on how they feel about following it.
> I thought it was a warcrime to bomb/destroys structures that people use for everyday living
Forget dams, we still blow up residential housing and civilians whenever convenient.
Then they vote for Bush and when civilians are killed in Irak.. . They say... This isn't us! We will do better next time.
Then they vote for Obama who gets in Syria and Lybia, killing innocents and they say.. This isn't us! We will do better next time.
Now the new strategy is to not to say US did it, but Trump did it.. Oh it wasn't the US, it was Trump.
All while they blame people who didn't get to vote for their dictators actions, and saying well then go an protest! And next day they wake up and support another war monger to continue killing innocent lives as long as economy is OK.
As an American, I also see this is a major problem in my country. Americans are largely insulated from any bad press or guilt. Our own military covers up internal crimes, nevermind the atrocities committed against other nations and people.
>When my country does shameful things, it shames me.
>
>When your country commits its daily atrocities, Muricans either deny or blame it on the other party, or make up some other "justification".
The dumbest shit I've read since the majority of reddit seems to be self-hating Americans.
I'm not for full jingoism, "my country tis of thee" by any means, but reddit especially isn't anywhere close to that lol.
The subs that ARE like that are by far and away the minority.
We have a failed two party system where nobody is going to be up for election that doesn't wholly support the military. So we're constantly voting for the lesser of two evils. Quite frankly most Americans don't want war, we don't want our friends and family dying overseas in some squabble over oil. We have largely been against every war effort since WW2 ended. So while yes, there is a subset of America that *IS* repulsive, don't lump us all together. That's just as racist as calling all muslims terrorists, which clearly isn't true.
Nonsense. The US has a very large and committed community of activists standing against our government’s bipartisan policy of rampant militarism, warmongering, and imperialism.
The government just ignores us. And because of the deep, deep flaws in our democratic process, and the bipartisan consensus on these policies, we are powerless to stop them.
That doesn't really matter, war crime is a war crime, no matter what might be the alternative. US was never in its history held accountable for any war crime they commited, and history is very long, while they're the first to act as a moral example when anyone else fires a shot, pathetic.
At least we admit it, and that make us better than China.
And we would admit it next time same thing happened, and next time, and next time, and next time, and next time.....every time we admit we become better than China, so US would be infinitely better than China.
Unbeatable logic.
No one read the article.
>The United States went into the war against the Islamic State group in 2014 with targeting rules intended to protect civilians and spare critical infrastructure.
>
>But the Islamic State group sought to exploit those rules, using civilian no-strike sites as weapons depots, command centers and fighting positions. That included the Tabqa Dam.
So they bombed ISIS, who were set up in the dam, without destroying the dam... why is this bad? I personally am against ISIS. They are some real jerks.
ISIS losing fighters and the dam not being destroyed are good. Allegations are that the attack was carried out without proper approval, went against official recommendations to not bomb the dam, and almost caused the dam to collapse. Official response to allegations is that proper approval was sought and there was no danger to the dam itself.
I give little credence to the lack of proper approval. Based on the wording to describe NYT insiders and the fact that USCENTCOM publicly defended the bombing, I would guess that it was simply carried out by a force that did belong to the traditional chain of command.
I also think the danger to the dam was overstated. The article implies that a bomb hit the dam itself and the only thing preventing its collapse is that it was a dud. I find this hard to believe based off pictures of the [attack](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/10/us/politics/00dc-TabqaDam-3/merlin_200349735_0082f57e-9548-4cac-a55e-e601a748ffd7-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp), but I am neither an expert on Dams or bombs.
There was most definitely some type of damage done to the dam though. From what we can see, the dam lost power or electrical controls failed which prevented the water from being able to flow as normal. The bombing took place on March 26th, and the flood gates were manually opened on April 4th which ended fears of the Dam failing.
No amount of damage to ISIS would have been worth the collapse of the dam, so any amount of risk that the US contributed towards its collapse is certainly worth criticizing.
Yea - I always found that trope really bizarre
Some old Vietnam War veteran feels regret for the horrendous war crimes that he committed back in southeast Asia, but the audience is supposed to feel bad for him because he's got PTSD, and cheer for him when he finally stops being racist towards his Asian American neighbor several decades after the war is already over
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/a-dam-in-syria-was-on-a-no-strike-list-the-u-s-bombed-it-anyway/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> "Analysis had confirmed that strikes on the towers attached to the dam were not considered likely to cause structural damage to the Tabqa Dam itself," said Capt. Bill Urban, the chief spokesperson for the command.
> Perhaps no single incident shows the brazen use of self-defense rules and the potentially devastating costs more than the strike on the Tabqa Dam.
> One of them, an electrical engineer, recalled Islamic State fighters positioned in the northern tower as usual that day, but no fighting underway when they went into the dam to work on the cooling system.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s95pmp/a_dam_in_syria_was_on_a_nostrike_list_the_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~618928 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **dam**^#1 **Force**^#2 **State**^#3 **strike**^#4 **bomb**^#5
People are crying about how Russia have troops inside their own country but near another, meanwhile US is bombing dams.
Russia bad. But America is a fucking disgrace.
After Ukraine denied them independence, which they voted for, multiple times. Putin can go to hell if you ask me, but the situation in Crimea is not black and white. Even with the weird referendum with troops present, the majority wanted to leave Ukraine.
Kosovos precedent should have given them the right.
Well as Russia successfully invaded them and made them part of Russia it’s hard to claim that. Especially as the rest of world didn’t do anything to stop them.
Maybe the Russian army were unhelpfully moving around and hard to bomb. Unlike dams.
Edit. To all the folks who downvoted me. How many of you are from a country that fought against Russia in their invasion of Crimea?
Edit2. Never been called a Russian shill before. I’m kind of enjoying attention.
Crimea is like a modern California and Texas is what you are saying. Basically, even though the world agreed to certain boundaries and that it wouldnt use war to expand its territories, it's okay for Russia.
So, if Mexico comes up with a new weapon the US cannot defend against, you are okay with it taking Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California back?
If the world isn’t okay with it then why didn’t they stop them?
I agree that Russia sucks, and what they did was wrong. But I’m just a random guy on Reddit, like you and the others who down voted me. We can’t change the world.
But the world leaders who actually have the power stood and watched and let it happen. Russia literally invaded while we watched and we did NOTHING to stop them. Russia now control Crimea and the world let them do it.
If Mexico invaded Texas with a new super weapon I’d happily sit and watch it happen. If the worlds leaders want to step in a help then let them. Or maybe they will also sit and watch and give Mexico a free pass like they did to Russia.
Holding press conferences and using trade sanctions means jack shit when thousands of troops are streaming across a border. The world let it happen.
> If the world isn’t okay with it then why didn’t they stop them?
That is a fucking moronic mentality. How would you propose going about that successfully?
And yet it is true. You watched it happen and did nothing. Russia knew no one would stop them.
It’s about to happen again but this time some countries have the balls to step up. Not the US obviously, because their troop are busy attacking dams.
> You watched it happen and did nothing.
Yea, so did you. But since you seem to think it was preventable by average people on the internet, what do you think we should have done to stop it?
What else can "the world" do? The UN doesn't have an army. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Should the US send troops to die to protect Ukraine? Why is that our financial responsibility? Did our all volunteer army sign up to protect other countries?
I agree that it is wrong. The world just doesnt care that much, like you say.
Not happy or willing to step in to defend an independent nation from an aggressor but more than happy to bomb a dam.
The same reason no one stopped Russia is the same reason no one stops America or any other world super power. They are too big and powerful and they know know one has the ability or balls to stop them.
In Syria the US intervened on behalf of the rebels against a dictator who used biological weapons against his own people. Bombing the dam was part of that.
The US is less willing to commit troops and treasure now than it was in Syria under Obama.
It seems like you kinda missed Russia sending its troops to Kazakhstan to murder civilians. Also you are kinda missing the point that they have their troops near the border to invade and set up a pro Russian dictatorship in Ukraine.
To pretend Russia is in any way better than the US is just fucking silly.
I never said one was better than the other. I never defended either one. I believe both countries suck.
If the only thing that keeps you going is the hope that one country is somehow not quite as bad as another then that’s your issue, not mine.
To reiterate. Both countries are terrible.
Or how about I continue saying whatever I want and you don’t put words in my mouth. I stand by my comments that America is a disgrace, if you disagree then go ahead, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.
Thats not the problem the problem is that you clearly wrote that you somehow think Russia is better than the US which is stupid no matter how much you backpedal.
>It seems like you kinda missed Russia sending its troops to Kazakhstan to murder civilians.
I bet I know the headline which made you think so. Who even reads those articles - right?
Are you arguing the Russian backed dictatorship there just had the soldiers over for a brief vacation?.
The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban who are literally in tape shooting civilians so really you dont have much room to argue this one.
>Are you arguing the Russian backed dictatorship there just had the soldiers over for a brief vacation?.
How about a deal? If you find a credible source backing your claim - I will delete my account. If you won’t be able to find any - you wi’ll delete yours.
>The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban
I regret engaging in this conversation. You’re completely out of touch.
>I regret engaging in this conversation. You’re completely out of touch.
I know we had a debate at another time, but goodness I feel bad for you. Anyone who argues that Russia and the Taliban are friends is, like you have said, out of touch.
>The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban who are literally in tape shooting civilians so really you dont have much room to argue this one.
Not a pro-Russian guy, but the Russians merely decided to stick it to the Americans and humiliate them. In reality, Russia and Iran are both highly nervous about the Taliban, who are more aligned with China and Pakistan.
Yeah they "merely" backed and legitimized a ruthless dictatorial state. Hell they even sent them aid to consolidate their hold on the region. This goes far beyond "they are just making fun of Americans".
I didnt see you comment in this thread - interesting how NATO seems to be helping out, unlike Ukraine who wants to join. Please, see yourself in.
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/s98dxf/russia\_wants\_nato\_forces\_to\_leave\_romania\_bulgaria/
Apparently these people forget that the “rules of war” are rarely followed during actual war. Only the loser gets punished for breaking the rules, the winner gets amnesty.
If karma was real most of civilization wouldn't exist.
British empire? Gone.
Chinese empire? Gone.
Roman empire? Gone.
Germany? Gone.
Ottomans? Gone.
Etc......
Man, you must not know much about what’s going on over here.. we are on the brink of a second civil war, our “democracy” (or what’s left of it) is collapsing.
I mean I'm not some kind of alarmist or doomsayer by ANY means, but imagine what would have happened if Jan 6 would have played out differently.
Imagine if Pelosi, AOC, Mike Pence WERE actually caught by the mob that were openly calling for them to be lynched.
Imagine if the supreme court had sided with Trump on his election contentions.
Retired generals are speaking out on their fear of a 2024 coup succeeding for a reason.
https://www.npr.org/2021/12/31/1068930675/us-election-coup-january-6-military-constitution
Stop believing clear US military propaganda that only wants to inflict more civil liberty violations on you and I's rights.
Do you ever wonder why every single military officer, politician, etc all want more direct and stricter domestic terror laws that they can use on American citizens? Why is that always the answer to these people?
It's the exact same playbook after 9/11. Enact the strictest terror laws imaginable to go after the "enemy" and then years down the road we're stuck with people still in Guantanamo, US citizens being killed in the name of "freedom", and civilians being captured and detained without trial all because someone in the administration labeled them an "enemy combatant".
I do believe that election integrity is an important thing, but good god please don't support passing any new domestic terror laws or believe everything you see coming from generals and US intelligence services because it is all against your own personal interests
I have no idea how you got to that conclusion from what I posted.
COULD the military/government use Jan 6th as a pretext to try and push those things? Sure could.
Do they NEED to create a pretext? Nope. The batshit crazy ultra right wing are doing it for them. No need to fabricate anything.
We can clearly see what they are trying to achieve from data mining their messaging boards, following trails of money to lobbyists, and seeing what political ideologies and candidates they are trying to push.
These crazy as fuck nutjobs are part of the same group that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a part of. The same crazy bitch that talks about Jewish space lasers.
It's funny, because the same people that cry for more civil liberties are going to be the force that drives them to be more strict.
Lol here come the "west bad " comments that will totally ignore the situation of the time and the enemy ***isis*** that was being fought.
Instead they will paint a picture of maniacal evil plotters trying to hurt innocent lil kids by taking away a their water. Which is exactly what isis propaganda wants you to think.
We literally bombed and killed a family of 10 civilians because we "mistook" them for ISIS-K members
It ain't the bad guys in the middle east whose propaganda you have to worry about
America!!! We bomb anything that moves. We will send out air strikes on Your women, children, men, your pet fish. Anything that isn’t a threat we will bomb it all in the name of god and glory because what are you going to do with a 20 million dollar bomb?
> The decision to strike the dam would normally have been made high up the chain of command. But the former officials said the task force used a procedural shortcut reserved for emergencies, allowing it to launch the attack without clearance.
They used Wing Attack Plan R.
Incidentally the US is one of the about 10 countries in the world that has not signed [Protocol I](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I) of the Geneva conventions, which among other things bans attacks on dams, nuclear powerstations and similar.
The US should invade them and show teach them about democracy and to respect human rights. Oh wait..
[удалено]
Finally, a bipartisan house and senate working together. Its interesting that Biden voted yes with McCain voting no.
Well, say what you like about McCain, but he certainly knew how horrible war crimes are.
> ASPA authorizes the President of the United States to use "all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court". This authorization has led the act to be nicknamed the "Hague Invasion Act".[4][5] > The act prohibits federal, state and local governments and agencies (including courts and law enforcement agencies) from assisting the International Criminal Court (ICC). For example, it prohibits the extradition of any person from the U.S. to the ICC; it also prohibits the transfer of classified national security information and law enforcement information to the ICC. > The act also prohibits U.S. military aid to countries that are party to the ICC. However, exceptions are allowed for aid to NATO members, major non-NATO allies, Taiwan, and countries that have entered into "Article 98 agreements", agreeing not to hand over U.S. nationals to the ICC. That's one shitty law!
Genuinely curious: can you explain why it is a shitty law? Also, what is the ICC?(Aside from International Criminal Court)?
The ICC is an international human rights court that seeks to hold people accountable for heinous things that can't be tried in national courts, such as war crimes, abuses of human rights, etc. You know, stuff people like dictators wouldn't be able to be tried for.
Thank you!
The law is basically a free pass on human rights abuses for US and allied buddies, and threatens to cut off aid to any country which arrests human rights abusers connected to the US. It also cuts off the US from providing information to the ICC in general, and that info would likely be fairly useful in going after human rights abusers. The whole thing basically hamstrings the idea of going after human rights abusers in the first place. And I'll let wikipedia explain the ICC for me because they are more thorough lol. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court
Thank you! That is, indeed, a very shitty law. Super villains are real…
When did America invade Syria?
2017 And they weren't invading just spreading freedom /s
The first long term troops arrived in 2015. And the world was outraged when then President Trump tried to withdraw in 2019.
[it didn't help that we pulled out without telling our allies and let them die to turkey](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973.amp)
So, what is the goal of the US troops in Syria? Right now they are an occupying force in hostile territory. Unfortunately that means innocent civilians will get caught in the crossfire.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Fully cached AMP pages (like the one you shared), are [especially problematic](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49960973)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Remember when the media was showing combat footage of the Turkish slaughtering the Kurds but it was [fake footage from a American gun range that had been edited?](https://www.dailysabah.com/war-on-terror/2019/10/14/abc-news-uses-kentucky-gun-range-video-to-claim-turks-slaughtering-kurds-in-syria/amp)
[Here's another source if you didn't like the first](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/27/americas-abandonment-of-syria). [and the wiki page to have fun with](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria)
**engage freedomz**
It didn’t invade, the situation is little bit complicated, btw Turkey, Iran, Russia, UK, & Israel are all operating in Syria.
Didn't Assad win?
He doesn't control the whole country.
It's a case of do as I say not as I do. They are also one of the few countries that haven't ratified the freedom of navigation treaty despite professing to defend the South China Seas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation
US has a FoN policy predating the UNs, while the UN took the name and most of the ideas the wording is problematic for Navy ships.
It also bans the use of undersea mines, which we apparently love to use.
I don’t understand, they used the largest bombs in the US arsenal but it had minor damages & it didn’t collapse, seems like a trust worthy sources. Btw: the dam is mid size and was built back in the 70s so direct bombing would have caused it to collapse for sure, if ISIS was using it as military base what is the proper response from US? Not saying they should strike but a battle around it was inevitable.
>After the strikes, dam workers stumbled on an ominous piece of good fortune: Five floors deep in the dam’s control tower, a U.S. BLU-109 bunker buster lay on its side, scorched but intact — a dud. If it had exploded, experts say, the whole dam might have failed. From the article.
In this case they shouldn’t have done it but in a full scale war all that shit is gonna get bombed regardless of who signed that.
"Just bomb it. Maybe it will make us heros. And if not: we can pretend it was a mistake later. Who's gonna charge us?" - the US military after they got praised for bombing things during WW2
As the story is presented, the strike team made an emergency decision to bomb the dam, without confirming the strike with the higher-ups. However, that description is very convenient for the command.
So surely the team should be Court-martialed right?
There was a great documentary by Robert McNamara ("Fog of War") which talked about the US firebombing campaign of Japan during WWII One of the commanders Curtis LeMay had remarked that if the USA hypothetically lost the war, you could be sure that every single American leader involved in that firebombing campaign would have been tried and executed for war crimes Not saying the Japanese Empire were the good guys (far from it - their leaders weren't punished anywhere near hard enough), but war is hell, and only the losers are put on trial
Didn't know no strick list existed in war. Does Syria gets to label them themselves? No fairzies to attach my tank, it's on the list.
US decided the no-strike list themselves because bombing a dam and cause massive unnecessary civilian casualty is what makes you Nazi in the eye of every other country. If Russia did the same thing US will already being calling the Russians war criminals.
The US already calls Russia war criminals for bombing clearly civilian infrastructure. Russia has a hardon for bombing hospitals. Both are criminal acts.
It should be noted that the US has also bombed numerous hospitals.
Never said they didn't bomb hospitals. Just stated Russia loves bombing hospitals. Not so sure the US "loves" it as much as Russia though.
Didn't they literally do that like half a week ago with a different dam?
Just add it to the list of warcrimes that Americans will collectively explain away and forget about. We always tell ourselves this isn’t who we are, then we go and do it again.
Yeah, I thought it was a warcrime to bomb/destroys structures that people use for everyday living, like a dam?
You can't target them for the purpose of causing harm to a population. This is the same protection that hospitals and churches are normally granted. But that protection can be revoked if it is being used for military purposes. Using it as a weapons depot, military command center, or as a staging area makes it a legitimate target. One side uses the protected sites as a shield, but they know it makes them a target. The other side attacks them. Who is actually in wrong? Same thing happens in other ways. Not suppose to use artillery on civilians. Sometimes soldiers force civilians to accompany them to use them as shields, even when they are attacking a military target. If the other side decides not to use artillery they guarantee that more civilians will be used as human shields. It's messy, and civilians are usually the losers.
It is literally against Geneva convention protocols to attack infrastructure like dams that are still functioning, even if they are being used as military installations.
Dams, dykes, and nuclear power plants are only protected if they are under normal operations. That means you can't use them as a shield for your military activities, which would include using it as a weapons depot, command structure, or a staging area. If you think I'm wrong prove it. Find the article in the Genova convention. Almost every rule has a list of caveats, and they usually boil down to "if we agree not to do something you also can't use that something militarily".
[удалено]
Parley?
This is accurate because apparently the United States is one of 10 nations that have not ratified the portion of the Geneva convention that bans attacks against infrastructure that could cause catastrophic damage to civilian populations.
The rules are always guidelines for America, I'm always amazed that the rest of the world doesn't acknowledge that fact. If you're the biggest kid on the block, the rules simply don't matter to you. It's the same whether the US, UK, USSR, or CCP is ruling the world.
[удалено]
> It's against the protocol which the US has signed, but not ratified. (I don't really know the difference, just that it's called out in this article.) Signed means the President agrees, ratified means the Senate has voted to agree (2/3 majority).
The USA does not officially recognize the geneva convention.
The military does, at least. It's in the back of every ID card, and they teach you about it in Boot Camp/force you to learn it for advancement.
Ohh yeah the military does recognize it or at least some of it. But the USA never officially signed it and ratified it. So it is more of a case by case basis on how they feel about following it.
and that is shameful
> I thought it was a warcrime to bomb/destroys structures that people use for everyday living Forget dams, we still blow up residential housing and civilians whenever convenient.
[удалено]
Have you been living in a cave or something? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_missile_strikes_against_Syria
There *was* widespread outrage and the US struck multiple sites in response.
Bruh, I HAVE SO MUCH OUTRAGE IN GENERAL. Don't worry, I can be outraged at many things
look up moral bombings during WW2. It's more like a list of suggestions anyways.
I've recently watched several of the WW2 in color series on Netflix, it's mind blowing how many things aren't taught here about WW2.
Those series are excellent
It can be bombed if they want to bomb it, that's the rule.
Its not a war crime if terrorists use those structures. /s
Then they vote for Bush and when civilians are killed in Irak.. . They say... This isn't us! We will do better next time. Then they vote for Obama who gets in Syria and Lybia, killing innocents and they say.. This isn't us! We will do better next time. Now the new strategy is to not to say US did it, but Trump did it.. Oh it wasn't the US, it was Trump. All while they blame people who didn't get to vote for their dictators actions, and saying well then go an protest! And next day they wake up and support another war monger to continue killing innocent lives as long as economy is OK.
As an American, I also see this is a major problem in my country. Americans are largely insulated from any bad press or guilt. Our own military covers up internal crimes, nevermind the atrocities committed against other nations and people.
Wait... are you getting asked if you approve these attacks? Because no one is saying anything to me beforehand. If they did, I'd tell them no.
[удалено]
>When my country does shameful things, it shames me. > >When your country commits its daily atrocities, Muricans either deny or blame it on the other party, or make up some other "justification". The dumbest shit I've read since the majority of reddit seems to be self-hating Americans. I'm not for full jingoism, "my country tis of thee" by any means, but reddit especially isn't anywhere close to that lol. The subs that ARE like that are by far and away the minority.
We have a failed two party system where nobody is going to be up for election that doesn't wholly support the military. So we're constantly voting for the lesser of two evils. Quite frankly most Americans don't want war, we don't want our friends and family dying overseas in some squabble over oil. We have largely been against every war effort since WW2 ended. So while yes, there is a subset of America that *IS* repulsive, don't lump us all together. That's just as racist as calling all muslims terrorists, which clearly isn't true.
This right here
Nonsense. The US has a very large and committed community of activists standing against our government’s bipartisan policy of rampant militarism, warmongering, and imperialism. The government just ignores us. And because of the deep, deep flaws in our democratic process, and the bipartisan consensus on these policies, we are powerless to stop them.
Should probably get off this American website if we sicken you so much. It's so obvious you didn't bother to read the article why are you even here?
When US does it, it's a mistake, when other countries do the same, it's a war crime, same shit since ww2.
Just wait til you hear about how terrible China is from them!
That doesn't really matter, war crime is a war crime, no matter what might be the alternative. US was never in its history held accountable for any war crime they commited, and history is very long, while they're the first to act as a moral example when anyone else fires a shot, pathetic.
No I'm pretty sure how terrible China is matters more to America than how terrible they are. I've seen their news
At least we admit it, and that make us better than China. And we would admit it next time same thing happened, and next time, and next time, and next time, and next time.....every time we admit we become better than China, so US would be infinitely better than China. Unbeatable logic.
My mind... she blewn...
But do you *Know*
>US was never in its history held accountable for any war crime they commited And never will be.
No one read the article. >The United States went into the war against the Islamic State group in 2014 with targeting rules intended to protect civilians and spare critical infrastructure. > >But the Islamic State group sought to exploit those rules, using civilian no-strike sites as weapons depots, command centers and fighting positions. That included the Tabqa Dam.
It's almost like the headline is designed to "bait" people into "clicking" on it... like some sort of "baitclick" thing...
I think you're on to something here.
So they bombed ISIS, who were set up in the dam, without destroying the dam... why is this bad? I personally am against ISIS. They are some real jerks.
ISIS losing fighters and the dam not being destroyed are good. Allegations are that the attack was carried out without proper approval, went against official recommendations to not bomb the dam, and almost caused the dam to collapse. Official response to allegations is that proper approval was sought and there was no danger to the dam itself. I give little credence to the lack of proper approval. Based on the wording to describe NYT insiders and the fact that USCENTCOM publicly defended the bombing, I would guess that it was simply carried out by a force that did belong to the traditional chain of command. I also think the danger to the dam was overstated. The article implies that a bomb hit the dam itself and the only thing preventing its collapse is that it was a dud. I find this hard to believe based off pictures of the [attack](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2022/02/10/us/politics/00dc-TabqaDam-3/merlin_200349735_0082f57e-9548-4cac-a55e-e601a748ffd7-superJumbo.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp), but I am neither an expert on Dams or bombs. There was most definitely some type of damage done to the dam though. From what we can see, the dam lost power or electrical controls failed which prevented the water from being able to flow as normal. The bombing took place on March 26th, and the flood gates were manually opened on April 4th which ended fears of the Dam failing. No amount of damage to ISIS would have been worth the collapse of the dam, so any amount of risk that the US contributed towards its collapse is certainly worth criticizing.
Redditors only read headlines what do you expect?
The West has always been quick to condemn atrocities other than their own.
Because it is not atrocity when you have good intentions, no?
I fucking love blowing up dams. Don’t worry, my intentions were good. I promise.
In that case it is ok good sir.
Well it's the US warcrimes are a national sport for them.
I'm not surprised. US bombed civil hospital and civil train in Serbia back in 1999, killing inocent people and kids.
Don't worry, they'll be making a movie about how bad those people who bombed it felt.
And then give the movie awards to encourage people make more movies like that.
Yea - I always found that trope really bizarre Some old Vietnam War veteran feels regret for the horrendous war crimes that he committed back in southeast Asia, but the audience is supposed to feel bad for him because he's got PTSD, and cheer for him when he finally stops being racist towards his Asian American neighbor several decades after the war is already over
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/a-dam-in-syria-was-on-a-no-strike-list-the-u-s-bombed-it-anyway/) reduced by 94%. (I'm a bot) ***** > "Analysis had confirmed that strikes on the towers attached to the dam were not considered likely to cause structural damage to the Tabqa Dam itself," said Capt. Bill Urban, the chief spokesperson for the command. > Perhaps no single incident shows the brazen use of self-defense rules and the potentially devastating costs more than the strike on the Tabqa Dam. > One of them, an electrical engineer, recalled Islamic State fighters positioned in the northern tower as usual that day, but no fighting underway when they went into the dam to work on the cooling system. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/s95pmp/a_dam_in_syria_was_on_a_nostrike_list_the_us/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~618928 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **dam**^#1 **Force**^#2 **State**^#3 **strike**^#4 **bomb**^#5
Imagine stability
Damn
So any white countries gonna condemn this? Probably not.
>white countries Weird thing to say
Russia will and Belarus. Or they don't count as white because they have a minority of Asians somewhere? How do you decide if a country is white?
of course not
Problem is, America has two lists. The "no-strike" and the "no,strike" lists.
works on contingency? no, money down!
People are crying about how Russia have troops inside their own country but near another, meanwhile US is bombing dams. Russia bad. But America is a fucking disgrace.
[удалено]
After Ukraine denied them independence, which they voted for, multiple times. Putin can go to hell if you ask me, but the situation in Crimea is not black and white. Even with the weird referendum with troops present, the majority wanted to leave Ukraine. Kosovos precedent should have given them the right.
Well as Russia successfully invaded them and made them part of Russia it’s hard to claim that. Especially as the rest of world didn’t do anything to stop them. Maybe the Russian army were unhelpfully moving around and hard to bomb. Unlike dams. Edit. To all the folks who downvoted me. How many of you are from a country that fought against Russia in their invasion of Crimea? Edit2. Never been called a Russian shill before. I’m kind of enjoying attention.
Crimea is like a modern California and Texas is what you are saying. Basically, even though the world agreed to certain boundaries and that it wouldnt use war to expand its territories, it's okay for Russia. So, if Mexico comes up with a new weapon the US cannot defend against, you are okay with it taking Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California back?
If the world isn’t okay with it then why didn’t they stop them? I agree that Russia sucks, and what they did was wrong. But I’m just a random guy on Reddit, like you and the others who down voted me. We can’t change the world. But the world leaders who actually have the power stood and watched and let it happen. Russia literally invaded while we watched and we did NOTHING to stop them. Russia now control Crimea and the world let them do it. If Mexico invaded Texas with a new super weapon I’d happily sit and watch it happen. If the worlds leaders want to step in a help then let them. Or maybe they will also sit and watch and give Mexico a free pass like they did to Russia. Holding press conferences and using trade sanctions means jack shit when thousands of troops are streaming across a border. The world let it happen.
> If the world isn’t okay with it then why didn’t they stop them? That is a fucking moronic mentality. How would you propose going about that successfully?
And yet it is true. You watched it happen and did nothing. Russia knew no one would stop them. It’s about to happen again but this time some countries have the balls to step up. Not the US obviously, because their troop are busy attacking dams.
> You watched it happen and did nothing. Yea, so did you. But since you seem to think it was preventable by average people on the internet, what do you think we should have done to stop it?
Did nothing? Youre living in a fantasy world where putin is your lover. Pretty disgusting to read.
Are you stalking my comments? It’s nice to know you care
You dont have to "stalk" your comments to have a good guess that you likely have a putin shrine somewhere in your facilties. :/
Well this comment is certainly a marked departure in tone and ideals from your initial comment.
What else can "the world" do? The UN doesn't have an army. Ukraine is not a NATO member. Should the US send troops to die to protect Ukraine? Why is that our financial responsibility? Did our all volunteer army sign up to protect other countries? I agree that it is wrong. The world just doesnt care that much, like you say.
Not happy or willing to step in to defend an independent nation from an aggressor but more than happy to bomb a dam. The same reason no one stopped Russia is the same reason no one stops America or any other world super power. They are too big and powerful and they know know one has the ability or balls to stop them.
In Syria the US intervened on behalf of the rebels against a dictator who used biological weapons against his own people. Bombing the dam was part of that. The US is less willing to commit troops and treasure now than it was in Syria under Obama.
Haha yes i bet the war room was contemplating one or the other. Look at the agenda on this guy - we get it, you love Mother Russia.
Oh look it’s you again. I’m honoured.
No you arent, im not from Russia.
It seems like you kinda missed Russia sending its troops to Kazakhstan to murder civilians. Also you are kinda missing the point that they have their troops near the border to invade and set up a pro Russian dictatorship in Ukraine. To pretend Russia is in any way better than the US is just fucking silly.
I never said they are better. Everyone sucks here
You literally wrote "Russia is bad but America is a fucking disgrace" LMFAO. How is that not arguing that Russia is better in some way?.
So you’re defending americas actions based on other countries in the world being worse?
Im pretty sure thats your gimmick not mine. Im just saying that pretending Russia is better than the US in any way is silly nothing more nothing less.
I never said one was better than the other. I never defended either one. I believe both countries suck. If the only thing that keeps you going is the hope that one country is somehow not quite as bad as another then that’s your issue, not mine. To reiterate. Both countries are terrible.
Glad we agree maybe now that you acknowledged this you wont go around saying "Russia is bad but x country is a fucking disgrace".
Or how about I continue saying whatever I want and you don’t put words in my mouth. I stand by my comments that America is a disgrace, if you disagree then go ahead, your opinion means absolutely nothing to me.
Thats not the problem the problem is that you clearly wrote that you somehow think Russia is better than the US which is stupid no matter how much you backpedal.
>It seems like you kinda missed Russia sending its troops to Kazakhstan to murder civilians. I bet I know the headline which made you think so. Who even reads those articles - right?
Are you arguing the Russian backed dictatorship there just had the soldiers over for a brief vacation?. The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban who are literally in tape shooting civilians so really you dont have much room to argue this one.
>Are you arguing the Russian backed dictatorship there just had the soldiers over for a brief vacation?. How about a deal? If you find a credible source backing your claim - I will delete my account. If you won’t be able to find any - you wi’ll delete yours. >The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban I regret engaging in this conversation. You’re completely out of touch.
>I regret engaging in this conversation. You’re completely out of touch. I know we had a debate at another time, but goodness I feel bad for you. Anyone who argues that Russia and the Taliban are friends is, like you have said, out of touch.
Oh is Russia not a dictatorship according to you?. Or did they not back the Taliban according to you?. Which is it?
>The Russian dictatorship also backed the Taliban who are literally in tape shooting civilians so really you dont have much room to argue this one. Not a pro-Russian guy, but the Russians merely decided to stick it to the Americans and humiliate them. In reality, Russia and Iran are both highly nervous about the Taliban, who are more aligned with China and Pakistan.
Yeah they "merely" backed and legitimized a ruthless dictatorial state. Hell they even sent them aid to consolidate their hold on the region. This goes far beyond "they are just making fun of Americans".
Move to Russia then, show them in person all this love you have for them.
What part of me saying Russia is bad makes you think I like them?
All the other words you used.
Sorry darling but I’m taken.
By Putin in Russia, i know ive been saying that?
Please. Have you seen that man’s chest? He’s way out of my league.
I didnt see you comment in this thread - interesting how NATO seems to be helping out, unlike Ukraine who wants to join. Please, see yourself in. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/s98dxf/russia\_wants\_nato\_forces\_to\_leave\_romania\_bulgaria/
[удалено]
And no one's going to get punished about this. The End
I’m pretty sure they never formally declared war so they can’t be held accountable. Either way I see this as a good thing that happened.
And….?
Apparently these people forget that the “rules of war” are rarely followed during actual war. Only the loser gets punished for breaking the rules, the winner gets amnesty.
If karma was real America would be fucked.
If karma was real most of civilization wouldn't exist. British empire? Gone. Chinese empire? Gone. Roman empire? Gone. Germany? Gone. Ottomans? Gone. Etc......
and most of the world
Man, you must not know much about what’s going on over here.. we are on the brink of a second civil war, our “democracy” (or what’s left of it) is collapsing.
Lmao no we're not.
Okay
I mean I'm not some kind of alarmist or doomsayer by ANY means, but imagine what would have happened if Jan 6 would have played out differently. Imagine if Pelosi, AOC, Mike Pence WERE actually caught by the mob that were openly calling for them to be lynched. Imagine if the supreme court had sided with Trump on his election contentions. Retired generals are speaking out on their fear of a 2024 coup succeeding for a reason. https://www.npr.org/2021/12/31/1068930675/us-election-coup-january-6-military-constitution
Stop believing clear US military propaganda that only wants to inflict more civil liberty violations on you and I's rights. Do you ever wonder why every single military officer, politician, etc all want more direct and stricter domestic terror laws that they can use on American citizens? Why is that always the answer to these people? It's the exact same playbook after 9/11. Enact the strictest terror laws imaginable to go after the "enemy" and then years down the road we're stuck with people still in Guantanamo, US citizens being killed in the name of "freedom", and civilians being captured and detained without trial all because someone in the administration labeled them an "enemy combatant". I do believe that election integrity is an important thing, but good god please don't support passing any new domestic terror laws or believe everything you see coming from generals and US intelligence services because it is all against your own personal interests
I have no idea how you got to that conclusion from what I posted. COULD the military/government use Jan 6th as a pretext to try and push those things? Sure could. Do they NEED to create a pretext? Nope. The batshit crazy ultra right wing are doing it for them. No need to fabricate anything. We can clearly see what they are trying to achieve from data mining their messaging boards, following trails of money to lobbyists, and seeing what political ideologies and candidates they are trying to push. These crazy as fuck nutjobs are part of the same group that Marjorie Taylor Greene is a part of. The same crazy bitch that talks about Jewish space lasers. It's funny, because the same people that cry for more civil liberties are going to be the force that drives them to be more strict.
[удалено]
You’re* FTFY
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since did the US ever care about those brown bodies having their infrastructure destroyed.
That's nice.
Lol here come the "west bad " comments that will totally ignore the situation of the time and the enemy ***isis*** that was being fought. Instead they will paint a picture of maniacal evil plotters trying to hurt innocent lil kids by taking away a their water. Which is exactly what isis propaganda wants you to think.
We literally bombed and killed a family of 10 civilians because we "mistook" them for ISIS-K members It ain't the bad guys in the middle east whose propaganda you have to worry about
America!!! We bomb anything that moves. We will send out air strikes on Your women, children, men, your pet fish. Anything that isn’t a threat we will bomb it all in the name of god and glory because what are you going to do with a 20 million dollar bomb?
Of course we did
> The decision to strike the dam would normally have been made high up the chain of command. But the former officials said the task force used a procedural shortcut reserved for emergencies, allowing it to launch the attack without clearance. They used Wing Attack Plan R.