***
    • Kirp123@lemmy.worldEnglish
      84·
      9 months ago

      More Americans died of Covid than in any war the US was involved since it became a country, yes including the Civil War. The highest death estimate for the Civil War puts it around 750 000 deaths while around 1 200 000 died due to Covid. Most Americans don’t really care about the deaths of their fellow countrymen since, you know, they elected him again.

      Fun Fact (I know it’s not that fun): The number of people that died of Covid approaches the total number of people that died in all conflicts the US was involved from 1775 to 2019: 1 300 000 war dead versus 1 200 000 Covid dead

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        8·
        9 months ago

        By 2000 more Americans had died of AIDS than any war but the civil war. Though I will admit I was surprised we still didn’t care when it wasn’t just undesirables dying. Turns out we’re able to be ablist enough to declare anyone who dies of disease basically already dead beforehand

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      Oh good. Americans will die.

      Trump will be fine.

      I dunno. Iran got caught by American intelligence trying to assassinate Trump not long ago, under Biden.

    • Zorque@lemmy.worldEnglish
      50·
      9 months ago

      It used to be that non-combatants weren’t considered legitimate targets. Ain’t progress fun?

      • Anomalocaris@lemm.eeEnglish
        50·
        9 months ago

        tell that to all the civilians in Guantanamo and Gaza.

        if the first aggressor doesn’t give a fuck about rule of war, it can’t complain about them

        • matlag@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          21·
          9 months ago

          Or Ukraine’s civilians. Or the 500k–2M dead civilians during the war against Iraq. Oh, sorry, those were “collateral”…

          Usually citizens are not considered fair targets. They’re just targeted all the same.

          Iran does not have the military capabilities to fight off Israel, let alone the USA. So they will most likely use terrorist attacks, targeting civilians, because that’s the best hope they have to end the war: when the people back home get serious about ending it as they’re taking losses.

          Unfortunately, and as usual, the very important people who decide to keep going or stop are also the least likely to see their life at risk. And in this case, they also happen to not give a flying fuck about civilians lives.

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        9 months ago

        Americans have only ever pretended to care about non-combatants when it’s convenient. President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’ so he could pretend his drone strikes were killing fewer civilians.

        • proleEnglish
          4·
          9 months ago

          Yeah that was George W Bush.

          But sure, same thing right? 🙄

          • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            It was under Bush to justify imprisoning civilians. Bush was all for direct war actions.

            Obama massively increased bombings and drone bombings to pull out combat troops and would do stuff like double tap weddings. To lower the number of civilian deaths, Obama declared any male over the age of 14 to be, by definition, an enemy combatant.

            The person you responded to was correct, though a bit imprecise with their words.

            • proleEnglish
              1·
              9 months ago

              President Obama even invented the term ‘enemy combatant’

              There’s no grey area here, this is just false.

              • Count042@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                9 months ago

                He absolutely redefined to justify killing children. Bush didn’t do that. It was used, under Bush, to justify torture and jailing of adults.

                Obama re-invented it for his purposes. The purpose being to kill children without consequence.

                In my mind, that definitional change is significant enough that he owns a lot of that blame.

                Fucking goddammit, he redefined the word to justify killing children. Why do you defend that?

                EDIT: Removed indirect articles for easier readability, content is the same.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.worldEnglish
        14·
        9 months ago

        In the history of the world, it has only been a very short window during the late 20th/ early 21 st century that civilians were not considered fair game in war, although they get slaughtered anyway. Even with civilians being off limits, as recently as WW2, Korea, Vietnam, and the Middle East, civilians have been targets either by design, by atrocity, or by proximity.

        If there’s a war, don’t think you’re getting off the hook just because you’re a civilian. During war, the old adage “If your not with us, you’re against us” becomes weaponized.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zipEnglish
        7·
        9 months ago

        Well, it used to be that they were too. Have you heard of all the cities in Europe that were effectively destroyed during WWII?

        It comes and goes, usually whenever it’s useful. It sucks, but war is horrible. If civilians don’t want to be targets they should pressure their governments to not be in them. Yes, sometimes it’s worth fighting, but sometimes it isn’t.

      • flandish@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        9 months ago

        i mean true honest war does not have rules like that. the reason “rules of war” exist is so corporations can keep a labor pool and capital operating with minimal effect to profit. (“Ain’t no war but class war.”)

        true honest realistic “war” is carpet bombs, famine, death, and capitulation.

        stop expecting “war” to involve rules, you’ll only be surprised in the end.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
        24·
        9 months ago

        He also can’t. Proclamations of war are made by the legislature. (Congress). If the President sends troops in a supposed emergency they can go without legislative consent for 90 days and must be recalled at that time without the legislature’s approval. It’s stupid, because 90 days into a conflict we have troops on the ground and an immediate evacuation only hurts us economically and global appearance some worry about. Not to mention the troops lost/injured, casualties left with those attacked and Congress not agreeing to keep them there is an admission that it was wrong, so not paying restitution would hurt international relations as well.

        To me it comes to, if he orders troops on the ground, an immediate Congressional impeachment would be needed, and the Senate to remove him, or they will vote in favor of staying in the fight to “save face” and not care how many innocent lives die or are thrown into poverty, starve, are raped, wrongly imprisoned, tortured, and the damages it will cause to the mental health of a whole new generation of our soilders and people of other counties around the world.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
            6·
            9 months ago

            The funding comes from Congress… So either they approve it or are forced to approve it which they would have to recognize they no longer exist as an entity if the executive branch can write their checks for them.

            So to save face, they would have to approve or impeach. Or completely give up the guise that it is a Republic. Their votes are public record. So the executive branch could make them up, post them and threaten them not to say anything… but I doubt many of them would go through with that and not vote to impeach unless they are truly pro dictatorship. Some of them think they are pro dictatorship, but when you gather hundreds of people spending their lives/career trying to work their way up in power and someone says they are going to dissolve their positions/power and their chances of rising or having any say plummet… they would be powerless if they chose to follow… Greed and self preservation would make them not want it.

        • Zenith@lemm.eeEnglish
          7·
          9 months ago

          Americans are always about how we hate the government of a country but not the people, at least this American is and all the Americans I know are, I know it’s not literally universal. To say “I hate the Iranian government but not Iranian people” seems pretty reasonable if you hate the Iranian government but for them to turn around and basically say “well I consider all American entities, including completely powerless civilians free game” is fucked I’m no matter how you look at it. Like wtf more do you want from me? I vote against this, have for decades, I protest against this have been since W was in office, I donate money and energy to war torn countries, I’m absolutely against bombing any country why exactly am I considered fair game?? Fuck anyone who lumps entire countries of people into a single hive-mind that serves its leader, a fraudulent one no less

          • the_wiz@feddit.orgEnglish
            12·
            9 months ago

            Well, do yourself what you would expect other people in a rogue state to do. How many cries of “the Russians should overthrow the government!” were there?

            Or to bring in a parable: What would you have expected from the average German citizen in 1939?

          • Ginny [they/she]English
            7·
            9 months ago

            According to the British (during the Malayan Emergency) and Americans (during Operation Ranch Hand), indiscriminately starving enemy civilians by spraying Agent Orange everywhere was legal.

            In more recent history, we of course have Captain Drone Strike’s reign of terror against wedding parties and aid workers in Afghanistan.

            The only thing that’s changed since the Geneva conventions of 1949 is that when civilians are targeted, the rest of the world says “tut tut, that’s a war crime” before it proceeds not to do anything about it.*

            * Unless you’re from Africa or the Balkans, apparently.

              • Ginny [they/she]English
                2·
                9 months ago

                It depends on your definition of “legitimate”, I suppose.

                My point is that the targeting of civilians is still and always has been common in war. It may now be de jure illegal but it is de facto not policed.

                • FuckFascism@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  The word legitimate has a pretty specific definition it’s not really something that can be reasonably debated.

  • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    98·
    9 months ago

    The headline is somewhat misleading. Iran said US personnel are legitimate targets (meaning those employed by the US government. Not all US citizens.

    Although if I were American I would not risk depending on the judgment of a random Iranian soldier.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      32·
      9 months ago

      First sentence:

      Iran announced Sunday that any American civilian or military personnel in the region are now considered legitimate targets

      So yes, still not all Americans, but no, not just government employees, American civilians too.

      But I suspect non-military people will be arrested, not treated as military targets to be attacked or bombed.

      • BigPotato@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        Based on that sentence, it even just says “in the region” so hardly “all” Americans

      • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
        25·
        9 months ago

        While I don’t recommend believing them non-conditionally, Haaretz has generally been opposed to Netanyahu and hid actions, especially after he picked a fight with them earlier this year.

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      9 months ago

      My best guess is that they’ll use biological warfare. Our culture has already demonstrated that this is a huge weakness. They could also get us with a cyber attack, shutting down important infrastructure that way.

      • BarneyPiccolo@lemmings.worldEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        Release Ebola or some such thing in America, and the MAGAs will make sure no laws or mandates are passed to prevent it’s spread. 50% of the population will be gone within a year, destroying our society without firing a shot.

      • EndlessNightmare@reddthat.comEnglish
        13·
        9 months ago

        Our government is exceptional at dealing in violence but inept at handling threats that it can’t beat, shoot, or bomb into submission.

        The societal response and government handling of COVID was not at all reassuring. To the point that I let go of any last remaining shred of hope I had for us to turn this ship around on several metrics (e.g. climate change). And unfortunately I think it has gotten even worse, e.g. with the (at least apparent) increase in anti-vaxxers.

        • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.worldEnglish
          8·
          9 months ago

          Same. My city reopened in Mid-June 2020 and I remember going to the gym and seeing people pretending the virus was gone, no masks, distancing, or wiping down the equipment. People are disgusting.

          So I still mask up and carry sanitizer.

      • Wahots@pawb.socialEnglish
        5·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think they will. We as a species still suffer from diseases where shit comes into contact with our mouth. If we can’t solve fecal-oral diseases, any bioweapon you deploy will infect your own population. It’s why we terminated our bioweapons program. It’s about as discerning as chemical warfare. :P

        On a related note, I’d fucking love bidets with dryers to be mandatory at all farms, hospitals, food handling facilities, markets, and restaurants. It would minimize the impact of fecal-oral diseases, especially with improper handwashing and food handling (eg, not wearing gloves).

      • valkyrieangelaEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        Iran isn’t known for it’s cybersecurity divisions. Right wing states generally aren’t good with technology. So I’m not worried about a cyber attack.

        In fact, it’s tough to say what Iran’s military capacity is at all. We pelt them with drone strikes and long range missiles constantly and they seem like they can do nothing about it. We keep talking about all this enriched uranium they possess, but do they even possess the capacity to deliver the payload to our domestic soil before we thwart them?

        They’ll likely go after Israel first, so we’ll soon see the extent of their armaments.

  • brown567@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    41·
    9 months ago

    🎶 Everybody’s going to the party, have a real good time

    Dancing in the desert, blowing up the sunshine 🎶

  • considine@lemmy.mlEnglish
    30·
    9 months ago

    Propaganda is when you punch someone in the face and then quote them saying “I’ll kill you” instead of mentioning the face punch.

  • HurlingDurling@lemm.eeEnglish
    22·
    9 months ago

    Dear Iran, leave us Americans out of this fight. Your fight is with trump alone, we are hostages of him. Thank you for coming to my Ted talk

    • zbyte64@awful.systemsEnglish
      17·
      9 months ago

      Live by the sword, die by the sword. We let Gazan children die because of who their parents voted for. I’m not saying two wrong make a right but that doing what is right starts with us.

    • Tiger666@lemmy.caEnglish
      13·
      9 months ago

      You voted(or didn’t) for him and are responsible. Good luck, leave the rest of the world out of this.

      Sincerely the world.

      • HurlingDurling@lemm.eeEnglish
        9·
        9 months ago

        Fuck you, don’t assume that shit on me. I voted, I volunteered on phone banks, I tried talking to whomever you listen on why this guy was a bad deal all the way back from 2015, and it was never for that walking piece of human excrement.

        • Tiger666@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Did you vote against him? Did you read what I wrote? Then why so mad? Reading comprehension needs to increase in the US as well I see.

          Edit: you need to read and understand before commenting.

        • WizardofFrobozz@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          Stand back, everyone. This guy made phone calls. I’m sure MAGA knows better than to show their face in this guy’s neighborhood!

    • ssillyssadass@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Imagine a group of criminals holding a police station hostage. You are not the hostages, you are the ones who are supposed to take care of the hostage takers.

  • Sunflier@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    9 months ago

    My money is on Iran enacting a terrorist attack on July 4. It isn’t just Iran’s opportunity to enact mere vengeance, but it is a convenient opportunity to have that vengeance become deeply ingrained into the mind of America for a long time to come. Where we would once have celebrated our independence, that celebration would be contaminated by a horrific attack. It’s not just about enacting petty revenge, but it’d be about sending a message for generations. Also, the date is conveniently close.

    Edit: Spelling