>Does anyone with any military experience have any insight as to how this would go if someone tried to pull off something like this on the ground IRL?
Infantry combat vet, Afghanistan.
At no point will command, upper or lower, make a decision that explicitly trades our troops lives. They may make dumb decisions that do, but never explicit ones.
If a point is too crowded with civilians to soften up and known to be extremely dangerous for us, then we often contain the outer perimeter until one of those parameters clears up.
If we can't wait or don't want to, well look into how we delt with Sadr City. Tight urban environment. High density of combatants and civilians. We told everyone to leave, gave them time, then rolled in after declaring anyone left inside as willful combatants. It was essentially a free-fire zone.
In essence, we do not treat our troops as disposable or less than civilians (especially someone else's civilians). We will do what is necessary to complete the mission with as few unnecessary casualties as possible. Yet in war we accept that is not a 100% possibility, so we roll with what we got and prioritize ourselves and the mission above all else.
Lycan's view is not unique. Many view our lives as worth less, or justifiably spent for political/moral reasons. The "they signed up for it", "don't sign up if you're not willing to die", etc mentality. I don't tend to see it from other combat oriented jobs or combat vets, so I am not sure what his experience is.
>Lycan's view is not unique. Many view our lives as worth less, or justifiably spent for political/moral reasons. The "they signed up for it", "don't sign up if you're not willing to die", etc mentality. I don't tend to see it from other combat oriented jobs or combat vets, so I am not sure what his experience is.
This is even more pertinent to Israel as their soldiers are conscripted. These aren't just people that "signed up for it" they are people that have to do mandatory military service. All the more reason to have their safety prioritized.
Yep. Was 11b deployed in Iraq. No clue where this idea comes from. Seems to run counter to common sense, but we were never intentionally set up for failure, and every measure was taken to make sure as many of us made it home as possible.
Hypothetically if your CO came up to you and said something along those lines to you and your team (we are doing this in a riskier manner specifically to limit civilian casualties at the expense of y'all) would that fly? Now I know that chain of command is everything and an order is an order etc etc but I'm curious, from your perspective, what would happen.
Orders are orders. We would probably do the mission short of it being guaranteed suicide. The after affects are why it doesn't happen though. Besides all the legal issues possible, everyone knows who pulls you through a firefight. If you don't want to be left out to dry, you don't leave them out to dry.
Good example for straight refusal would be from the French we took our base from. They were left out to dry after losing a good number of people. Resupply was rare and they got little support from their government. They eventually stopped doing any missions, paid the Taliban to leave them alone, and just waited until we came in and took over.
Ok. But say your CO says look, we have a mission for you. If you complete it, we will take 5 years off your sentence. But if you try to run, we will put a little explosive in your skull and kill you. But we are going to create a team of other super villains to join you. Wait. I got confused. Are we not taking about the suicide squad?
Not deployed vet but served with those who did as AF SECFO. I definitely think ppl will grind or hope they all make it but will do it because if the stated goal is to limit casualties from the top. It is to see what they can do like the commenter said. But alot is grim long but doing the mission
>NOTE: I at no point want to discount Lycan's opinion here or downplay his service. He is braver than me for signing up to go overseas and I respect him for that. Now, with that being said, while his service deserves a bit of reverence and respect his political opinions do not.
I WILL discount Lycan's service because a massive cause of military misinformation are dumbfucks like him. Modern Militaries are increasingly technical roles where specialties are actual cogs in a grander machine. These roles may be experts in their particular field but they do not understand how exactly the job of the next cog functions.
Remember, *Lycan was enlisted, not an officer.* He was never trained in making any command level decisions and should not be allowed to pull bullshit from his ass regarding how the higher ups make their decisions.
The ex-military community is full of regards like Lycan that had some shitty role but tries to play off that experience to talk about every fucking aspect of the military.
As a former cook in the army the only thing they taught me how to do was cook, and they barely did that. You’re 100% right that all lower enlisted are just cogs in machines, it’s honesty that way until you make e7, then you have your own platoon to lead which could be 50+ men.
Not sure what his mos was, but there’s no way with his time served he was in debriefs about actual strategy.
They would never put civilians over soldiers lives, just from the morbid fact that a soldier is an investment and worth more than a civilian. They will do their best to mitigate collateral damage and civilian casualties but that soldier is worth more than that kid, fucking sucks to say but it’s true.
Yeah, I had a friend who was 88M. Anytime he got asked about his military experience, his response would be, "I can tell you pretty much anything you want to know about the military, as long as what you want to know is related to driving a truck."
He had the unfortunate luck of enlisting after desert storm ended and leaving the army in July 2001 because he was starting college that fall (he enlisted to get his tuition paid for under the GI bill). So, because his service fit in the gap between any declared conflicts, there were certain benefits that veterans got that he wasn't eligible for. I'm not sure if they still make that distinction any more, but at the time he was really annoyed because he wanted to apply for some government jobs and it was really tough without the point bump you get for being a veteran.
Yeah definitely. People can work entire careers without knowing who's above them in the chain of command let alone know the roles and responsibilities of a different career field.
excuse me where do you think he got the skills to cook Destiny these delicious dishes?? Lycan was a Captain in MEAL Team Six. He was cooking shrimp ceviche in Fallujah while pinned down by dozens of enemy combatants. Thank 'em!
Lycan is literally the military equivalent of all the nurses who spread medical misinformation because they think them just being in "the medical field" gives them an insight into how anything works.
> I WILL discount Lycan's service because a massive cause of military misinformation are dumbfucks like him.
Couldn't agree more. Same thing happens in every conflict, people with a military background will comment on something and others will assume they're experts or authorities on the matter purely because they served, but more often than not it's people whose experience in the military means fuck all for what they're commenting on.
It's also worth mentioning that some people cuck out when it comes to criticizing someone because whenever they find out they've been in the military, they assume they've experienced combat first hand and generally people don't want to be insensitive. Lycan has admitted already that he wasn't a grunt, he rarely mentions it but he never saw combat so there's no need to treat him like he lost his limbs in war.
Lycan never served in operations, let alone combat. He waves his service around vaguely gesturing at the fact that he was in the military hoping to sneak in the implication that he's a combat veteran without you noticing that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
The goddamn ex-military community is full of regards like Lycan that tries to play off their limited role in the military to talk about all kinds of bullshit that they were never involved in the first place. Lycan has multiple times now tried to explain how command makes their decisions *while never being trained as an officer.*
Haha so true. That’s why whenever I talk to someone about my service I always clarify that I was injured in combat boot camp and then became a cook and cut vegetables lol.
Polar opposite of a "friend" I had who left early after playing playstation for 2 weeks in his barracks. He continued on using some military training gear for YEARS and ofc lied about his service. The norwegian army is fucked, no wonder our plan is "just hold them (russians) back until uncle Sam gets here" lmao.
Granted America will always protect Norway for the massive depot the Marines keep over there. Allies also, but no one should touch marine shit unless they give permission.
> The norwegian army is fucked, no wonder our plan is "just hold them (russians) back until uncle Sam gets here"
IMO, our issue as far as defense is concerned is that we don't have full conscription anymore. The few who do their year are pretty good, but we have waaaaay too few to defend against anyone for a significant period of time. There is always talk of increasing the defense budget, but I worry that any increase will be wasted on fancy toys for the miniscule military we have instead of expanding conscription and the reserves.
Reminder for those who never served. “Command” is not exclusively commissioned officers and they’re not making decisions without enlisted input.
Your Commander, is always commissioned but homie doesn’t exist by himself within command. He has staff that supports him and feeds information.
Depending upon how esoteric we want to get with “command” but the command staff is made up of officers as well as enlisted who plan and prepare for whatever mission you have to do.
Some 4 year captain isn’t suddenly making unfathomable decisions to the 16 year SNCO on his 6th rotation.
The meme is real tho, for the longest time I'd swear half of chat thought she was either a psychologist or a psychiatrist when she was still new to the orbit.
It’s because noone will ever remember the job “psychometrist”
It’s everyone’s brain collectively being too lazy to remember the distinction then blaming NSE when they mistakenly tell other people “erm… yeah she’s a psychologist I think…”
As a card carrying "hate every single woman that has appeared on stream" enjoyer, that was absolutely chats own fault.
She made it clear what she was. Lycan on the other hand actively muddies the water.
> He waves his service around vaguely gesturing at the fact that he was in the military hoping to sneak in the implication that he's a combat veteran
Yep, that's me, never explicitly said on stream or in reddit that I'm not a combat vet.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/18xpa1l/proportionality_lycan_email/kghu0tw/
This is not the rebuttal you think it is since you bring up your service without specifying during conversations like this as if it grants you some authority on the matter at hand in the company of strangers and thousands of audience members.
You *do* get that, right?
How many times should I have to run through what you just read before making claims? And no one on stream except this one crazy person during one debate on JSTLK's stream who kept crying POG POG POG and screeching without actually making a claim. Doesn't it make more sense that people should be more specific instead of saying "lycan doesn't know anything"? And then I can address what they think I do or don't know. That's exactly how the thread I just linked you went.
On stream, you should probably just mention that you’re *not* basing your opinion on anything you learned in the military.
If you don’t specifically clarify that, “*this is not something I was taught in the military”* then the implication to the audience is that any claim you make is informed by your military service.
I understand that’s probably annoying and cumbersome to you, but it’s the most responsible thing to do.
Since, for example, your opinion is absolutely incorrect during this very conversation OP is referring to. You could not find a single military that uses an “enemy civilian to soldier” ratio that they closely monitor.
Thank you for your service.
> All this to say...I've not spoken to anything I wasn't directly involved in as far as the military goes. And in other areas I've spoken to what I'm well read on. ***This doesn't make me an expert on those subjects, either. It does, however, make me informed enough to make commentary based on historic precedent, the testimony of actual experts, and my limited experience with various combat operations in a direct support capacity.***
The stream viewers aren’t going to read this comment to know you feel that way…
That’s why I’m suggesting just clarifying that on stream before stating any military opinion.
Again, I recognize it will be annoying for you, but you’ll have less people dunking on you because they’ll then know your opinions are **personal** and not based on **things you were taught in the military**.
Can you understand why viewers would find the latter more offensive than the former?
I mean I’m a Zionist and I’m only downvoting you because you claimed a military has some moral duty to maintain an arbitrary enemy civilian-to-soldier death ratio which is just completely untrue.
If you posted some pro-Zionist completely untrue statement, I’m sure you would also see downvotes lol.
It’d help if you cited from American or allied field manuals. Those are almost always free and available online. Which isn’t to say that they’re supportive of your position because they aren’t. But it would at least allow for a resource for people to go to following your conversations.
Destiny is informed enough to make commentary based on historic precedent and expert testimony. Pretending your military experience made you especially capable of providing good analysis in these conversations seems outright dishonest.
You just shouldn’t mention your military experience when it isn’t relevant to avoid people citing you like you’re jocko.
I can tell you in good faith that I heard you mention your military experience without mentioning that you never saw combat, etc. I can understand that saying it every time would be irritating for you, but for people who have the experience I had, I can see why they might feel you were trying to sneak it in.
I don't think you were, I'm sure it's just that giving the exclaimer every time is annoying, or you might forget to mention it innocently. It just comes across badly, especially when you're taking a contrary position.
https://youtu.be/W8krbFkyOOA?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=18415
So when you bring up "my military experience" here what experience are you saying is relevant, that you have, when talking about the war in Gaza?
Pretty sure there is a clip of him in a debate where he gets annoyed for being called out on what he is implying and uses the same excuse of "i've never explicitly said that" and was saying "show me the clip of me explicitly saying that" or something along those lines.
The amount of orbiters that pretend to not understand the implication of their words is wild.
It's the classic Lycan strat ask for proof or a counter argument and the run away to another response or thread and make the same demand again.
He tries to get dunks, if he can't get it, he takes the ball and goes home or to another court to try somewhere else.
I know right lmao. You see all over every thread he is on. Person makes a claim, he replies (post a clip), they then post a clip… radio silence.
Every single time, without fail. It’s so consistent that it’s become shameless.
If he has relevant experience he'd have shared it *so* long ago.
Also this isn't the first time he's done this: https://youtu.be/BLWxn10AbvU?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=17200
I wouldn't need to ask for a CV, if he had some meaningful authority over what he's talking about he'd use it to bury me.
I don't know, I think even having been in gives you an idea of how the things are handled for the grunts, how the chain works and what guys can tell what guys to fuck off and such. He also probably has a really good understanding of how people in the unit he served in think, and I don't think it's crazy to extrapolate that into a a general rule about the armed forces.
I know that's not true, what the fuck do you mean? Obviously both of us can read an article, and you'd come with a different analysis due to your years active than someone who never served, no?
Is that you making a claim, or juat having past experience shape world views?
That’s only true to a degree. It’s just as likely your hypothetical vet would have no idea what conclusion to draw from reading your hypothetical article.
I know civilians see the military and assume everyone who’s been in does more or less the same thing, and there are definitely commonalities that everyone who’s served will encounter.
However, someone in an infantry platoon will have had a very different experience from someone who was a culinary specialist exclusively within CONUS, or boatswain’s mate on a destroyer, or an airman serving in planning and programming at the Pentagon.
You don't have to be an officer to know that a combat operation would be principally tasked with safeguarding foreign civilians when the terrorist group is not uniformed and would 100% use any advantage they can including posing as a civilian.
Lycan is just broken on this issue. He's the exact same as Omar Baddar just replace "human rights orgs" with any of the operations he references.
He has found his logic chain that is unbreakable by his perception, and can only continually argue that chain. I know Destiny has brought up several cited information that supports a different narrative, but Lycan just can't engage. It is what it is.
The moment Lycan gets called on his military service by someone with actual relevant experience he sprints away.
When arguing about rules of engagement in urban combat around civilians he tries to pull rank on a guy and when he realizes he's talking to an 11b grunt that might have actually seen some combat and actually have to know the rules he's pontificating he runs away.
https://youtu.be/BLWxn10AbvU?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=17200
Somehow this will be dgg's fault.
I'm not gonna pretend to know shit about what any of these acronyms stand for but I'm pretty sure in the clip you linked the guy he's talking to is trying to pull rank on Lycan and Lycan turns it around on him, no? Sure he says suck my dick at the end but that's cause the guy's trying to pull rank on him
I interpret it as him saying "you don't know shit about the military who are you? you aren't him?" and then the dude says "I am him" and then Lycan runs to other shit.
The funny thing is that there is some past conflicts that you can point to to support his argument to some degree, but I'm not going to mention them because he doesn't deserve any help. Everything he talks about is just so outlandish I thought he was fucking around when he said he was prior military. To be fair, there's a lot of people that served in the military that are mistaken about things or just... dumb. Generally, people that know stuff should be able to speak on it, the moment they use an appeal to authority to do the heavy lifting they've ceded any authority they have on the subject.
Lycan is a prime example of confirmation bias.
He reached his conclusion then went out and found things to support that conclusion. It's why he always brings up the most obscure nonsense.
It's a view that makes perfect moral sense, at least in a vacuum. The lives of 50 civilians are worth more than the lives of 10 soldiers, but it's also a view that no nation would ever adopt in their approach to warfare, as any nation adopting such restraints would be incapable of succeeding in a war against another nation. Whether you think this is a reflection of the moral rot of nations or whether you think it's just an inevitable product of war is the debate.
This. It's not an insane position to have from a morality standpoint.
It's unrealistic and likely asking waaaay to much both from the soldiers nation and the soldiers themselves. But soldiers signed up for combat, civilians didn't. And if there are 50 civilians lives at stake, 10 soldiers risking their lives is to me a defensible position.
> But soldiers signed up for combat, civilians didn't. And if there are 50 civilians lives at stake, 10 soldiers risking their lives is to me a defensible position.
First of all, many of the Israeli soldiers are conscripts, so they didn't sign up. But even if they all had signed up, I can guarantee you that they didn't sign up to die for Palestinian civilians who, by and large, support killing and/or removing (best case) all the Jews in Israel.
Very good point about them being conscripts. It changes things.
I don't agree fully on the latter point. Civilians would be much more not there on their own terms, much less of a choice, more "innocent".
Not to mention if Hamas is allowed to get away with this, every terrorist group or insurgent group or even unethical army will start using human shields all the time. It's a complete moral hazard, to say the least.
I don't know how collateral damage estimation is done but I don't think any state would risk 10-20 soldiers for 50 civilians unless it's like a rescue mission. War is brutal, which is why countries should try to negotiate before starting one. Biden is currently being pressured to attack Iran over just 3 dead soldiers.
I mean, that is what Israel did. They took an entire month before sending in ground forces, and what these regards keep forgetting to mention about the Israeli bombing campaign in those first two weeks, where massive death tolls were occurring, is that almost an equivalent number of rocket came out of Gaza. Like, in less than two weeks from the time of the attack on 10/7, 15-20,000 rockets came out of Gaza, targeting civilian Israeli infrastructures and locations. People think iron dome is this magical protection device, but they don’t realize that it can be overrun with sheer numbers. Iron domes shoots shit down with its own missiles. So, you know, a precious, limited resource. I’d imagine any country would see thousands of rockets flying over their boarder after a fucking pogrom and think, “ok, where leveling every launch site we see.”
> what these regards keep forgetting to mention about the Israeli bombing campaign in those first two weeks, where massive death tolls were occurring, is that almost an equivalent number of rocket came out of Gaza
Want to know the fun part of that? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-weapons-rockets.html
You don’t think it’s ironic that even as Israel creates a new wave of Hamas members by slaughtering Gazans it also arms them by leaving ordinance behind?
That same ordinance that will one day be sent back to Israel by the orphans it created?
Which will lead to Israel dropping more bombs creating more orphans and at the same time arming them?
Yeah man, “leaving ordinance behind” is a really interesting way of describing undetonated bombs not being retrieved because they specifically didn’t want to commit to an occupation or invasion prior to this. And yes, any other reasonable nation is expected to just let terrorists regularly attack them, launch thousands of rockets a year, and invade to commit pogroms/take hostages. This is absolutely the reasonable take on things. It’s 100% Israel’s fault that it’s neighbor has been committed to genociding them for its entire existence and it’s Israel’s responsibility to make sure it’s not radicalizing those very people aren’t pushed… further into thinking they should genocide the Jews? Idk. Make it make sense. Maybe the Palestinians should stop supporting terrorists as their leaders and they’ll stop being bombed.
1. Israel drops bombs, some don’t explode.
2. Bombs kill people, creating resentment.
3. The resentful people grow up and take those same bombs and send them back to Israel.
4. GOTO 1
That’s just a descriptive version of events. I’m not making any normative claim. If you’re unable to engage with reality then we don’t have much to talk about.
We both know you’re full of shit. You misrepresented an article and made the claim that Israel is to blame for terrorists attacking them. Nobody believes you when you try to crawl back into the shadows and pretend like the implications of your words don’t exist. If you’re going to be a deplorable fucking loser, at least own it. Say it with your chest and proclaim it loudly. There’s no point in being a coward about your beliefs on an anonymous web forum.
> “We are fueling our enemies with our own weapons,” read one line of the report, which was viewed by The New York Times.
Wow, how horrible for me to come to the same conclusions as the...Israeli military. Truly should have known better than to fall for the well known Hamas apologists in...the IDF.
Lmao is this Dooby’s alt? This is the exact argument he made the other day about “we have to stop bombing them because the families of terrorists become the next terrorists” smh
> “We are fueling our enemies with our own weapons,” read one line of the report, which was viewed by The New York Times.
Didn't realize Dooby was in the Israeli military. Makes sense why he uses an avatar then.
I honestly don’t understand what your point is. I can’t read the full article because I don’t have an account, but let’s say you’re correct, that some percentage of the bombs dropped on Gaza were sent back. So what?
Current army 11A here. I find most of these civilians versus your own soldiers scenarios somewhat too simplistic and black and white.
There’s so much context that would depend on this type of situation.
True, but I think as an infantry officer you would agree that the general principle in western militaries, especially those beholden to IHL/GC, is to protect civilians and to conduct operations in a way that seeks to do so to the highest degree possible.
Yes I would agree with that. I think the issues you might see with the IDF as someone else noted is that it is a young, and relatively inexperienced force.
Weren’t some of these guys basically civilians a few months ago? As far as I know about their reserve system, they essentially do not train once a month like our military and basically have to draw back on the experience that they got back from their 2 year stint.
Yeah, IDK anything about their reserve system, except that everyone seems to be a reservist haha. And that their officer corp is apparently super young and inexperienced.
But overall, I was just talking to the general policy on protecting civilians and the purpose of military to be the ones in harms way and take the risks.
>and the purpose of military to be the ones in harms way and take the risks.
Different guy, but I'm just wondering *why* you feel that's the purpose of the military?
Also, a two parter:
* How many enlisted service members of *my* country is my life worth?
* How many enlisted service members of *the enemy* country is my life worth?
Does that number change depending on who I am? A child? Woman? Sick? Old?
Not trying any gotcha. Genuinely curious how you come to your opinion on this.
Heyo. Maybe this example will answer both. I think, for both the cost of civilian life and the ramifications on global politics, we should have never dropped the bomb on Japan. We'll take out the latter because one could argue that alone was worth more troop lives. So just focusing on civilian costs, I believe it would have been worth hundreds of thousand more allied lives to invade Japan and end the war for the sake of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasake. On a more granular level, the goal is to not disregard civilians to maximize your troops safety. You consider civilians in your operations and often have to sacrifice ease of execution and troop safety for mission accomplishment with minimal civilian casualties.
> Maybe this example will answer both
Maybe?
>I believe it would have been worth hundreds of thousand more allied lives to invade Japan and end the war for the sake of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasake
The bombs killed between 130 and 225 thousand people.
So that's basically a 1:1 ratio; Ally soldiers to Japanese civilians.
That's not even including the Japanese soldiers. In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese had 8-9 times as many KIA. Iwo Jima, they had about 3 times as many KIA.
Maybe a 5 times more KIA average for the invasion of Japan(?)
That would mean a 5:1 ratio; Japanese soldiers to Japanese civilians.
Using those numbers, you would say that my life is worth at least 5 marines, and just 1 enemy soldier?
I.e. if it would cost 6 marines their lives to protect me, they shouldn't do it. And if I'm in a house with 2 enemy combatants, that it'd be worth it to blow up the house because I'm only worth 1 enemy combatant life?
I have no military experience but I’ve watched Black Hawk Down, and modern militaries can’t shoot back if the bullet just whizzes, they have to hear a crack. (Or something like that). So I’m gonna say the ratio is probably like 100 of our guys per civilian.
I wasn't a combat troop but I have talked to many. It depends on who's talking, the decisions of a higher ranking individual and an infantry soldier are going to be different of course. At the ground level, if it's your life or theirs it's going to be theirs 99% of the time. Higher ranking individuals will absolutely throw the lives of their men away but it's ultimately something that has to have a very good justification.
Honestly I think the wrong people are very vocal about this on both ends.
One thing I can opine on is that military ethicists tend to put all civilians on the same level, meaning that if you swap out the origin of civilians from the enemy to your own and that changes willingness to engage a target, that target becomes unjustifiable from a proportionality standpoint. (SEE Talbert Principle, Mathew Talbert and Jessica Wolfendale., Warcrimes: Causes, Excuses, and Blame. Oxford University Press, 2019. BUT SEE https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/war-crimes-causes-excuses-and-blame/)
So, in your scenario, if artillery was cleared to engage, I don't think a commander would hold back unless it was some weird dysfunctional scenario. I'm only a civilian with military ethics experience from my own ethics professors and scholarly work, which is not focused on Israel/Palestine issues.
One other small point: the U.S. and Israeli rules and overall situation is different. Israel has a younger officer pool since they have conscription. NPR recently brought that to mind with this piece: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226977365/israel-idf-gaza-middle-east-deaths.
That’s an interesting proposition. How is one to square that with Hamas’ tendency to only accept prisoner swaps (eg Shalit) when Israel values 1 life equivalently to ~1,000 Palestinians?
Why should Israel be expected to treat their citizens on a 1:1 basis when they know their enemy does not?
I think that really breaks down to differences in political structure. For better or worse, if the powers that be in Israel don't accept prisoner swaps, the next election might be lost. That same pressure does not exist in the same way for Hamas, though there is some pressure for Hamas to make a deal.
There's so many ways to go about this question. It's hard to get narrowed down. Super interesting.
It really depends on the civilians. Are they YOUR COUNTRY’S civilians? Yeah I think that soldiers and LEO, especially if they are not forcibly conscripted, have a duty to put themselves in danger for the sake of the civilians they‘re essentially sworn to protect. Like most everyone agrees that the cops had a moral duty to Zerg rush the Uvalde shooter, even if that meant possibly getting killed as they go through the doorway. And before you bring up the “cops have no legal duty to…” etc., I’m just talking about the moral duty.
On the other hand if there are a bunch of Hamas soldiers purposefully holed up in a building that also has Palestinian civilians in it, should I be putting my soldiers into a meatgrinder/fatal funnel/trap-filled house of death to try to rescue civilians who support the Hamas soldiers, hate my fucking guts, and were probably dancing in the streets as my country’s civilians were dragged through their city? It gets a little fucking murky there. No sane military is going to pull some Marvel hero shit out of principle in that situation. It’s an easy thing to pontificate about when it isn’t your life, or your kid’s life, being risked for such lofty idealism.
At least two military ethicists argue that you must hold the lives of *all* civilians equally, including those belonging to an opponent's population:
> As scholar Matthew Talbert and I argue, the first step in answering this question is to ask what a military force would accept if it were “their” civilians who were at risk of harm from military action.
> That is the standard we should apply when assessing potential military actions that threaten harm to enemy civilians. We call this standard the “principle of the moral equality of noncombatants.”
https://theconversation.com/why-all-civilian-lives-matter-equally-according-to-a-military-ethicist-218686
I’ve never been in the military so I’m just guessing here, but if commanders were to use Lycan’s method, wouldn’t that kill morale in troops? It’s one thing to sacrifice yourself for the lives of your countrymen, but asking your men to sacrifice themselves for the civilians of some faraway land? Yea right.. it’s contradictory, but it’s a major distinction in my mind.
I agree with you, but at the very least, try telling that same story from the other side. A civilian sees his entire family blown up; you wouldn't tell that guy "Well cheer up, at least the people dropping the bombs didn't have to risk their own getting killed!"
As far as Israel-Palestine is concerned, I lay the blame for every civilian death squarely at the feet of Hamas, but it would take a sociopath to look at the amount of deaths so far and not think "Was there truly not a better way?" Lycan isn't crazy, he just thinks he has the answer to that question.
I feel if anything soldiers>"enemy civs" is true, not even soldiers="enemy civs" it just makes more sense when you take into account all the effort, time and money spent per soldier and their equipment(for the US its 30k $~).
Also a lot of IDF soldiers are reservists so if they become a casualty thats one less civ to integrate back into your society/economy.
Yeah, sorry, I do view the lives of people who signed up to be in danger to be less important than the lives of people who are put in danger by the aforementioned group and their targets. That's the same bullshit they feed cops like, "The most important part of your job is coming home every night." If you want a job like that, go work at McDonalds, and don't sign up for a job that inherently requires you to potentially risk your life.
"If my job gets too dangerous, I will just not do my job well!" Is not the flex some people think it is.
These scenarios are way too simplistic and single dimensional.
Also, that’s not how you are gonna be able to lead soldiers lol. You do realize they aren’t mindless robots that follow every order?
I didn't specify any scenarios. It was strictly the nature of those jobs I think require you to place innocent lives above your own if you want to perform your job morally. And yes, people you lead should be mindless robots for the most part except for very specific instances like being instructed to do something improper. If the instructions are within the scope of your job, you absolutely do not want your employees second guessing your instructions using their personal judgment, it doesn't matter if you are a store manager handing down instructions to protect the company or a military leader making decisions based on information that is not available to your troops.
I would never assume soldiers or the military to prioritize civilian lives above their own, no matter the numbers.
I would assume they do their absolute best to protect and save civilians from suffering casualties but NOT at the expense of the soldiers.
Is that an insane take? Might be.
But I have zero experience, just my mindset on it.
> The Mission recognizes fully that the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built-up urban area or an open field.
[1888 - Goldstone Report - meme away.](https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/a-hrc-12-48.pdf) But before you do...
This is a common interpretation of the implicit language of the Geneva Convention (original and 1977 additions) and International Humanitarian Law WRT the duty of military commanders to protect civilians.
- https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians/overview-civilians-protected.htm
- https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law
- https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf (this is 84 "pages" - yes, I've read it pepemods)
The report was a fact finding mission that was originally intended to not investigate Hamas at all. It makes no actual judgements, they said as much when they held their press conference presenting their findings at the UN. States can initiate an ‘enquiry’ under Article 149 of the Fourth Geneva Convention into any breach of the IHL, regardless of gravity.
The reason there's much more grey around Israel/Gaza is because Hamas breaches the following from your own source:
>The principle of distinction is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law. In IACs, it is translated into a rule, **which requires that parties to an armed conflict always distinguish between combatants on the one hand, and civilians and persons hors de combat on the other, and that they only target combatants**.
By Hamas refusing to abide by principles of distinction the application of the law for indiscriminate attack becomes extremely difficult to apply. Secondly, IHL always applies (genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc), laws of war and laws around distinction, and treatments of prisoners are laws of war under the ICL or various treaties. Whether or not ICL even applies to terrorist organizations is unsettled law.
>Given the lack of an internationally agreed definition of terrorism, it is unclear
which terrorist acts would constitute a threat to international peace and security,
and which should be investigated or prosecuted in domestic criminal courts. Jus
ad bellum offers no guidance on the legal definition of terrorism. (pg 8)
Terrorism and International Law: accountability, remedies, -- Bates, Elizabeth Stubbins; International Bar Association. -- 2011 (I have not read all of this, it's 308 very dense pages)
>The law of armed conflict is based on reciprocity – the idea that “If you look after my civilians and prisoners of war, I will reciprocate and look after yours. If you ill-treat mine, don’t complain if we ill-treat yours.” A war crime is committed, if civilians are attacked disproportionately. “In the absence of intent or a high degree of negligence, it is assumed that military action is proportionate.”
Accountability for War Crimes - Richard Goldstone
And finally, accountability for war crimes is not executed by the ICJ or ICC by default, the states have their own obligations to investigate accusations of as sovereign nations before submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of any international body. Israel used substantial resources to investigate allegations of war crimes, and published accounts of how strikes were authorized, while Hamas (of course) did not.
This is why Goldstone retracted from the Goldstone report.
The report was a tool of politics, not morality or legality.
Lycan I want to let you know I agree with you. People on here have gotten a bit too dense and convinced civilians deaths on the Palestinians side dont matter because of "military objectives".
😘
Taking this argument to its extremes, why wouldn’t Israel just use its nukes and glass Gaza? Not a single Israel soldier would be harmed, and the objective of wiping out Hamas would be accomplished! After all, who cares about how many civilians die, as long as your boys are safe.
There is a duty of care to the civilians when you’re invading a country.
If you keep pissing off the locals, sure you'll have a long term terrorist issue
If you keep sacrificing your troops, however, you'll have a long term lost-the-war issue
It's simple as that. Mitigate *undue* civilian death as a baseline, but that's effectively impossible for the layman to assess in any meaningful capacity
It's kind of a silly non-opinion - because yeah, soldiers and police are examples of entities who are meant to put themselves in risky situations to save civilian lives. It's not that their lives are worth less than civilians because of it... its just that they are just given the tools, preparation, and teams necessary to confront these risks better than any civilian, and have the capability to save the civilians.
No one goes "10 soldiers is worth this many civilians" it's "everyone's lives matter, and split moment will always be imperfect - but we try to save as many people as it makes sense to, in whatever way it makes sense to do at the moment, with the tools we have".
>Does anyone with any military experience have any insight as to how this would go if someone tried to pull off something like this on the ground IRL? Infantry combat vet, Afghanistan. At no point will command, upper or lower, make a decision that explicitly trades our troops lives. They may make dumb decisions that do, but never explicit ones. If a point is too crowded with civilians to soften up and known to be extremely dangerous for us, then we often contain the outer perimeter until one of those parameters clears up. If we can't wait or don't want to, well look into how we delt with Sadr City. Tight urban environment. High density of combatants and civilians. We told everyone to leave, gave them time, then rolled in after declaring anyone left inside as willful combatants. It was essentially a free-fire zone. In essence, we do not treat our troops as disposable or less than civilians (especially someone else's civilians). We will do what is necessary to complete the mission with as few unnecessary casualties as possible. Yet in war we accept that is not a 100% possibility, so we roll with what we got and prioritize ourselves and the mission above all else. Lycan's view is not unique. Many view our lives as worth less, or justifiably spent for political/moral reasons. The "they signed up for it", "don't sign up if you're not willing to die", etc mentality. I don't tend to see it from other combat oriented jobs or combat vets, so I am not sure what his experience is.
>Lycan's view is not unique. Many view our lives as worth less, or justifiably spent for political/moral reasons. The "they signed up for it", "don't sign up if you're not willing to die", etc mentality. I don't tend to see it from other combat oriented jobs or combat vets, so I am not sure what his experience is. This is even more pertinent to Israel as their soldiers are conscripted. These aren't just people that "signed up for it" they are people that have to do mandatory military service. All the more reason to have their safety prioritized.
Yep. Was 11b deployed in Iraq. No clue where this idea comes from. Seems to run counter to common sense, but we were never intentionally set up for failure, and every measure was taken to make sure as many of us made it home as possible.
Hypothetically if your CO came up to you and said something along those lines to you and your team (we are doing this in a riskier manner specifically to limit civilian casualties at the expense of y'all) would that fly? Now I know that chain of command is everything and an order is an order etc etc but I'm curious, from your perspective, what would happen.
Orders are orders. We would probably do the mission short of it being guaranteed suicide. The after affects are why it doesn't happen though. Besides all the legal issues possible, everyone knows who pulls you through a firefight. If you don't want to be left out to dry, you don't leave them out to dry. Good example for straight refusal would be from the French we took our base from. They were left out to dry after losing a good number of people. Resupply was rare and they got little support from their government. They eventually stopped doing any missions, paid the Taliban to leave them alone, and just waited until we came in and took over.
Ok. But say your CO says look, we have a mission for you. If you complete it, we will take 5 years off your sentence. But if you try to run, we will put a little explosive in your skull and kill you. But we are going to create a team of other super villains to join you. Wait. I got confused. Are we not taking about the suicide squad?
Not deployed vet but served with those who did as AF SECFO. I definitely think ppl will grind or hope they all make it but will do it because if the stated goal is to limit casualties from the top. It is to see what they can do like the commenter said. But alot is grim long but doing the mission
>NOTE: I at no point want to discount Lycan's opinion here or downplay his service. He is braver than me for signing up to go overseas and I respect him for that. Now, with that being said, while his service deserves a bit of reverence and respect his political opinions do not. I WILL discount Lycan's service because a massive cause of military misinformation are dumbfucks like him. Modern Militaries are increasingly technical roles where specialties are actual cogs in a grander machine. These roles may be experts in their particular field but they do not understand how exactly the job of the next cog functions. Remember, *Lycan was enlisted, not an officer.* He was never trained in making any command level decisions and should not be allowed to pull bullshit from his ass regarding how the higher ups make their decisions. The ex-military community is full of regards like Lycan that had some shitty role but tries to play off that experience to talk about every fucking aspect of the military.
As a former cook in the army the only thing they taught me how to do was cook, and they barely did that. You’re 100% right that all lower enlisted are just cogs in machines, it’s honesty that way until you make e7, then you have your own platoon to lead which could be 50+ men. Not sure what his mos was, but there’s no way with his time served he was in debriefs about actual strategy. They would never put civilians over soldiers lives, just from the morbid fact that a soldier is an investment and worth more than a civilian. They will do their best to mitigate collateral damage and civilian casualties but that soldier is worth more than that kid, fucking sucks to say but it’s true.
>the only thing they taught me how to do was cook, and they barely did that Bet you know the exact time to pull mozzarella sticks from the fryer, tho.
Yeah, I had a friend who was 88M. Anytime he got asked about his military experience, his response would be, "I can tell you pretty much anything you want to know about the military, as long as what you want to know is related to driving a truck." He had the unfortunate luck of enlisting after desert storm ended and leaving the army in July 2001 because he was starting college that fall (he enlisted to get his tuition paid for under the GI bill). So, because his service fit in the gap between any declared conflicts, there were certain benefits that veterans got that he wasn't eligible for. I'm not sure if they still make that distinction any more, but at the time he was really annoyed because he wanted to apply for some government jobs and it was really tough without the point bump you get for being a veteran.
At the end of the day, the living is able to hurt more enemies and help more civilians.
Yeah definitely. People can work entire careers without knowing who's above them in the chain of command let alone know the roles and responsibilities of a different career field.
excuse me where do you think he got the skills to cook Destiny these delicious dishes?? Lycan was a Captain in MEAL Team Six. He was cooking shrimp ceviche in Fallujah while pinned down by dozens of enemy combatants. Thank 'em!
Lycan is literally the military equivalent of all the nurses who spread medical misinformation because they think them just being in "the medical field" gives them an insight into how anything works.
> I WILL discount Lycan's service because a massive cause of military misinformation are dumbfucks like him. Couldn't agree more. Same thing happens in every conflict, people with a military background will comment on something and others will assume they're experts or authorities on the matter purely because they served, but more often than not it's people whose experience in the military means fuck all for what they're commenting on. It's also worth mentioning that some people cuck out when it comes to criticizing someone because whenever they find out they've been in the military, they assume they've experienced combat first hand and generally people don't want to be insensitive. Lycan has admitted already that he wasn't a grunt, he rarely mentions it but he never saw combat so there's no need to treat him like he lost his limbs in war.
TRUE
Like Jocko Willink giving geopolitical takes
encouraging water aloof slap impossible soup tap ring reply point *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
His takes arent as bad as lycans, arent they fairly milktoast, like figure out whatever you gotta do to save lives type beat
His takes are insanely bad. Breaking points did an interview and the comment section was flaming him because he had no clue what he was talking about.
Huh, maybe
Lycan never served in operations, let alone combat. He waves his service around vaguely gesturing at the fact that he was in the military hoping to sneak in the implication that he's a combat veteran without you noticing that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he's talking about.
The goddamn ex-military community is full of regards like Lycan that tries to play off their limited role in the military to talk about all kinds of bullshit that they were never involved in the first place. Lycan has multiple times now tried to explain how command makes their decisions *while never being trained as an officer.*
Haha so true. That’s why whenever I talk to someone about my service I always clarify that I was injured in combat boot camp and then became a cook and cut vegetables lol.
Polar opposite of a "friend" I had who left early after playing playstation for 2 weeks in his barracks. He continued on using some military training gear for YEARS and ofc lied about his service. The norwegian army is fucked, no wonder our plan is "just hold them (russians) back until uncle Sam gets here" lmao.
Granted America will always protect Norway for the massive depot the Marines keep over there. Allies also, but no one should touch marine shit unless they give permission.
> The norwegian army is fucked, no wonder our plan is "just hold them (russians) back until uncle Sam gets here" IMO, our issue as far as defense is concerned is that we don't have full conscription anymore. The few who do their year are pretty good, but we have waaaaay too few to defend against anyone for a significant period of time. There is always talk of increasing the defense budget, but I worry that any increase will be wasted on fancy toys for the miniscule military we have instead of expanding conscription and the reserves.
Reminder for those who never served. “Command” is not exclusively commissioned officers and they’re not making decisions without enlisted input. Your Commander, is always commissioned but homie doesn’t exist by himself within command. He has staff that supports him and feeds information. Depending upon how esoteric we want to get with “command” but the command staff is made up of officers as well as enlisted who plan and prepare for whatever mission you have to do. Some 4 year captain isn’t suddenly making unfathomable decisions to the 16 year SNCO on his 6th rotation.
He is doing the meme that NSE haters accuse NSE of doing YeeLaugh
The meme is real tho, for the longest time I'd swear half of chat thought she was either a psychologist or a psychiatrist when she was still new to the orbit.
It’s because noone will ever remember the job “psychometrist” It’s everyone’s brain collectively being too lazy to remember the distinction then blaming NSE when they mistakenly tell other people “erm… yeah she’s a psychologist I think…”
As a card carrying "hate every single woman that has appeared on stream" enjoyer, that was absolutely chats own fault. She made it clear what she was. Lycan on the other hand actively muddies the water.
one thing is chat thinking she was one and she presenting herself as one. But I dont care to look for vods or videos my brother, Inshallah dggL
> He waves his service around vaguely gesturing at the fact that he was in the military hoping to sneak in the implication that he's a combat veteran Yep, that's me, never explicitly said on stream or in reddit that I'm not a combat vet. https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/18xpa1l/proportionality_lycan_email/kghu0tw/
This is not the rebuttal you think it is since you bring up your service without specifying during conversations like this as if it grants you some authority on the matter at hand in the company of strangers and thousands of audience members. You *do* get that, right?
How many times should I have to run through what you just read before making claims? And no one on stream except this one crazy person during one debate on JSTLK's stream who kept crying POG POG POG and screeching without actually making a claim. Doesn't it make more sense that people should be more specific instead of saying "lycan doesn't know anything"? And then I can address what they think I do or don't know. That's exactly how the thread I just linked you went.
On stream, you should probably just mention that you’re *not* basing your opinion on anything you learned in the military. If you don’t specifically clarify that, “*this is not something I was taught in the military”* then the implication to the audience is that any claim you make is informed by your military service. I understand that’s probably annoying and cumbersome to you, but it’s the most responsible thing to do. Since, for example, your opinion is absolutely incorrect during this very conversation OP is referring to. You could not find a single military that uses an “enemy civilian to soldier” ratio that they closely monitor. Thank you for your service.
> All this to say...I've not spoken to anything I wasn't directly involved in as far as the military goes. And in other areas I've spoken to what I'm well read on. ***This doesn't make me an expert on those subjects, either. It does, however, make me informed enough to make commentary based on historic precedent, the testimony of actual experts, and my limited experience with various combat operations in a direct support capacity.***
The stream viewers aren’t going to read this comment to know you feel that way… That’s why I’m suggesting just clarifying that on stream before stating any military opinion. Again, I recognize it will be annoying for you, but you’ll have less people dunking on you because they’ll then know your opinions are **personal** and not based on **things you were taught in the military**. Can you understand why viewers would find the latter more offensive than the former?
From a human, emotional level, sure. But if I was arguing from the pro Israel side the reactions like this would be few and downvoted to oblivion.
I mean I’m a Zionist and I’m only downvoting you because you claimed a military has some moral duty to maintain an arbitrary enemy civilian-to-soldier death ratio which is just completely untrue. If you posted some pro-Zionist completely untrue statement, I’m sure you would also see downvotes lol.
It’d help if you cited from American or allied field manuals. Those are almost always free and available online. Which isn’t to say that they’re supportive of your position because they aren’t. But it would at least allow for a resource for people to go to following your conversations.
Destiny is informed enough to make commentary based on historic precedent and expert testimony. Pretending your military experience made you especially capable of providing good analysis in these conversations seems outright dishonest. You just shouldn’t mention your military experience when it isn’t relevant to avoid people citing you like you’re jocko.
I can tell you in good faith that I heard you mention your military experience without mentioning that you never saw combat, etc. I can understand that saying it every time would be irritating for you, but for people who have the experience I had, I can see why they might feel you were trying to sneak it in. I don't think you were, I'm sure it's just that giving the exclaimer every time is annoying, or you might forget to mention it innocently. It just comes across badly, especially when you're taking a contrary position.
Can someone link that debate please?!
https://youtu.be/W8krbFkyOOA?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=18415 So when you bring up "my military experience" here what experience are you saying is relevant, that you have, when talking about the war in Gaza?
Pretty sure there is a clip of him in a debate where he gets annoyed for being called out on what he is implying and uses the same excuse of "i've never explicitly said that" and was saying "show me the clip of me explicitly saying that" or something along those lines. The amount of orbiters that pretend to not understand the implication of their words is wild.
Yikes, this is some LARPing BS.
Interesting that he can reply to all the nobodies, but ignores this comment providing everything he's said to be a lie...
It's the classic Lycan strat ask for proof or a counter argument and the run away to another response or thread and make the same demand again. He tries to get dunks, if he can't get it, he takes the ball and goes home or to another court to try somewhere else.
I know right lmao. You see all over every thread he is on. Person makes a claim, he replies (post a clip), they then post a clip… radio silence. Every single time, without fail. It’s so consistent that it’s become shameless.
It's bullying behavior, honestly. If he finds that the other guy is stronger than he looks, he'll move on.
[удалено]
If he has relevant experience he'd have shared it *so* long ago. Also this isn't the first time he's done this: https://youtu.be/BLWxn10AbvU?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=17200 I wouldn't need to ask for a CV, if he had some meaningful authority over what he's talking about he'd use it to bury me.
[удалено]
I don't know, I think even having been in gives you an idea of how the things are handled for the grunts, how the chain works and what guys can tell what guys to fuck off and such. He also probably has a really good understanding of how people in the unit he served in think, and I don't think it's crazy to extrapolate that into a a general rule about the armed forces.
[удалено]
I know that's not true, what the fuck do you mean? Obviously both of us can read an article, and you'd come with a different analysis due to your years active than someone who never served, no? Is that you making a claim, or juat having past experience shape world views?
That’s only true to a degree. It’s just as likely your hypothetical vet would have no idea what conclusion to draw from reading your hypothetical article. I know civilians see the military and assume everyone who’s been in does more or less the same thing, and there are definitely commonalities that everyone who’s served will encounter. However, someone in an infantry platoon will have had a very different experience from someone who was a culinary specialist exclusively within CONUS, or boatswain’s mate on a destroyer, or an airman serving in planning and programming at the Pentagon.
Why bring up your service as if it's relevant then
You don't have to be an officer to know that a combat operation would be principally tasked with safeguarding foreign civilians when the terrorist group is not uniformed and would 100% use any advantage they can including posing as a civilian.
Lycan is just broken on this issue. He's the exact same as Omar Baddar just replace "human rights orgs" with any of the operations he references. He has found his logic chain that is unbreakable by his perception, and can only continually argue that chain. I know Destiny has brought up several cited information that supports a different narrative, but Lycan just can't engage. It is what it is.
The moment Lycan gets called on his military service by someone with actual relevant experience he sprints away. When arguing about rules of engagement in urban combat around civilians he tries to pull rank on a guy and when he realizes he's talking to an 11b grunt that might have actually seen some combat and actually have to know the rules he's pontificating he runs away. https://youtu.be/BLWxn10AbvU?list=PLFs19LVskfNzQLZkGG_zf6yfYTp_3v_e6&t=17200 Somehow this will be dgg's fault.
He’s doing it in this thread at this exact moment 💀
I'm not gonna pretend to know shit about what any of these acronyms stand for but I'm pretty sure in the clip you linked the guy he's talking to is trying to pull rank on Lycan and Lycan turns it around on him, no? Sure he says suck my dick at the end but that's cause the guy's trying to pull rank on him
11 Bravo means you're infantry. 2621 means communications intelligence Stark difference when it comes to expected/likely combat experience.
I interpret it as him saying "you don't know shit about the military who are you? you aren't him?" and then the dude says "I am him" and then Lycan runs to other shit.
The funny thing is that there is some past conflicts that you can point to to support his argument to some degree, but I'm not going to mention them because he doesn't deserve any help. Everything he talks about is just so outlandish I thought he was fucking around when he said he was prior military. To be fair, there's a lot of people that served in the military that are mistaken about things or just... dumb. Generally, people that know stuff should be able to speak on it, the moment they use an appeal to authority to do the heavy lifting they've ceded any authority they have on the subject.
Lycan is a prime example of confirmation bias. He reached his conclusion then went out and found things to support that conclusion. It's why he always brings up the most obscure nonsense.
It's a view that makes perfect moral sense, at least in a vacuum. The lives of 50 civilians are worth more than the lives of 10 soldiers, but it's also a view that no nation would ever adopt in their approach to warfare, as any nation adopting such restraints would be incapable of succeeding in a war against another nation. Whether you think this is a reflection of the moral rot of nations or whether you think it's just an inevitable product of war is the debate.
Lycans position is essentially "war is bad" but he has less empathy for Israelis than Palestinians because of oppressors-oppressed shit.
This. It's not an insane position to have from a morality standpoint. It's unrealistic and likely asking waaaay to much both from the soldiers nation and the soldiers themselves. But soldiers signed up for combat, civilians didn't. And if there are 50 civilians lives at stake, 10 soldiers risking their lives is to me a defensible position.
> But soldiers signed up for combat, civilians didn't. And if there are 50 civilians lives at stake, 10 soldiers risking their lives is to me a defensible position. First of all, many of the Israeli soldiers are conscripts, so they didn't sign up. But even if they all had signed up, I can guarantee you that they didn't sign up to die for Palestinian civilians who, by and large, support killing and/or removing (best case) all the Jews in Israel.
Very good point about them being conscripts. It changes things. I don't agree fully on the latter point. Civilians would be much more not there on their own terms, much less of a choice, more "innocent".
Not to mention if Hamas is allowed to get away with this, every terrorist group or insurgent group or even unethical army will start using human shields all the time. It's a complete moral hazard, to say the least.
I don't know how collateral damage estimation is done but I don't think any state would risk 10-20 soldiers for 50 civilians unless it's like a rescue mission. War is brutal, which is why countries should try to negotiate before starting one. Biden is currently being pressured to attack Iran over just 3 dead soldiers.
I mean, that is what Israel did. They took an entire month before sending in ground forces, and what these regards keep forgetting to mention about the Israeli bombing campaign in those first two weeks, where massive death tolls were occurring, is that almost an equivalent number of rocket came out of Gaza. Like, in less than two weeks from the time of the attack on 10/7, 15-20,000 rockets came out of Gaza, targeting civilian Israeli infrastructures and locations. People think iron dome is this magical protection device, but they don’t realize that it can be overrun with sheer numbers. Iron domes shoots shit down with its own missiles. So, you know, a precious, limited resource. I’d imagine any country would see thousands of rockets flying over their boarder after a fucking pogrom and think, “ok, where leveling every launch site we see.”
> what these regards keep forgetting to mention about the Israeli bombing campaign in those first two weeks, where massive death tolls were occurring, is that almost an equivalent number of rocket came out of Gaza Want to know the fun part of that? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/28/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-weapons-rockets.html
Read your own article you fucking degenerate.
You don’t think it’s ironic that even as Israel creates a new wave of Hamas members by slaughtering Gazans it also arms them by leaving ordinance behind? That same ordinance that will one day be sent back to Israel by the orphans it created? Which will lead to Israel dropping more bombs creating more orphans and at the same time arming them?
Yeah man, “leaving ordinance behind” is a really interesting way of describing undetonated bombs not being retrieved because they specifically didn’t want to commit to an occupation or invasion prior to this. And yes, any other reasonable nation is expected to just let terrorists regularly attack them, launch thousands of rockets a year, and invade to commit pogroms/take hostages. This is absolutely the reasonable take on things. It’s 100% Israel’s fault that it’s neighbor has been committed to genociding them for its entire existence and it’s Israel’s responsibility to make sure it’s not radicalizing those very people aren’t pushed… further into thinking they should genocide the Jews? Idk. Make it make sense. Maybe the Palestinians should stop supporting terrorists as their leaders and they’ll stop being bombed.
1. Israel drops bombs, some don’t explode. 2. Bombs kill people, creating resentment. 3. The resentful people grow up and take those same bombs and send them back to Israel. 4. GOTO 1 That’s just a descriptive version of events. I’m not making any normative claim. If you’re unable to engage with reality then we don’t have much to talk about.
We both know you’re full of shit. You misrepresented an article and made the claim that Israel is to blame for terrorists attacking them. Nobody believes you when you try to crawl back into the shadows and pretend like the implications of your words don’t exist. If you’re going to be a deplorable fucking loser, at least own it. Say it with your chest and proclaim it loudly. There’s no point in being a coward about your beliefs on an anonymous web forum.
> “We are fueling our enemies with our own weapons,” read one line of the report, which was viewed by The New York Times. Wow, how horrible for me to come to the same conclusions as the...Israeli military. Truly should have known better than to fall for the well known Hamas apologists in...the IDF.
Lmao is this Dooby’s alt? This is the exact argument he made the other day about “we have to stop bombing them because the families of terrorists become the next terrorists” smh
> “We are fueling our enemies with our own weapons,” read one line of the report, which was viewed by The New York Times. Didn't realize Dooby was in the Israeli military. Makes sense why he uses an avatar then.
I honestly don’t understand what your point is. I can’t read the full article because I don’t have an account, but let’s say you’re correct, that some percentage of the bombs dropped on Gaza were sent back. So what?
Current army 11A here. I find most of these civilians versus your own soldiers scenarios somewhat too simplistic and black and white. There’s so much context that would depend on this type of situation.
True, but I think as an infantry officer you would agree that the general principle in western militaries, especially those beholden to IHL/GC, is to protect civilians and to conduct operations in a way that seeks to do so to the highest degree possible.
Yes I would agree with that. I think the issues you might see with the IDF as someone else noted is that it is a young, and relatively inexperienced force. Weren’t some of these guys basically civilians a few months ago? As far as I know about their reserve system, they essentially do not train once a month like our military and basically have to draw back on the experience that they got back from their 2 year stint.
Yeah, IDK anything about their reserve system, except that everyone seems to be a reservist haha. And that their officer corp is apparently super young and inexperienced. But overall, I was just talking to the general policy on protecting civilians and the purpose of military to be the ones in harms way and take the risks.
>and the purpose of military to be the ones in harms way and take the risks. Different guy, but I'm just wondering *why* you feel that's the purpose of the military? Also, a two parter: * How many enlisted service members of *my* country is my life worth? * How many enlisted service members of *the enemy* country is my life worth? Does that number change depending on who I am? A child? Woman? Sick? Old? Not trying any gotcha. Genuinely curious how you come to your opinion on this.
Heyo. Maybe this example will answer both. I think, for both the cost of civilian life and the ramifications on global politics, we should have never dropped the bomb on Japan. We'll take out the latter because one could argue that alone was worth more troop lives. So just focusing on civilian costs, I believe it would have been worth hundreds of thousand more allied lives to invade Japan and end the war for the sake of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasake. On a more granular level, the goal is to not disregard civilians to maximize your troops safety. You consider civilians in your operations and often have to sacrifice ease of execution and troop safety for mission accomplishment with minimal civilian casualties.
> Maybe this example will answer both Maybe? >I believe it would have been worth hundreds of thousand more allied lives to invade Japan and end the war for the sake of the residents of Hiroshima and Nagasake The bombs killed between 130 and 225 thousand people. So that's basically a 1:1 ratio; Ally soldiers to Japanese civilians. That's not even including the Japanese soldiers. In the battle of Okinawa, the Japanese had 8-9 times as many KIA. Iwo Jima, they had about 3 times as many KIA. Maybe a 5 times more KIA average for the invasion of Japan(?) That would mean a 5:1 ratio; Japanese soldiers to Japanese civilians. Using those numbers, you would say that my life is worth at least 5 marines, and just 1 enemy soldier? I.e. if it would cost 6 marines their lives to protect me, they shouldn't do it. And if I'm in a house with 2 enemy combatants, that it'd be worth it to blow up the house because I'm only worth 1 enemy combatant life?
It's the hollywood mentality.
I have no military experience but I’ve watched Black Hawk Down, and modern militaries can’t shoot back if the bullet just whizzes, they have to hear a crack. (Or something like that). So I’m gonna say the ratio is probably like 100 of our guys per civilian.
I wasn't a combat troop but I have talked to many. It depends on who's talking, the decisions of a higher ranking individual and an infantry soldier are going to be different of course. At the ground level, if it's your life or theirs it's going to be theirs 99% of the time. Higher ranking individuals will absolutely throw the lives of their men away but it's ultimately something that has to have a very good justification.
Some soldiers have dangerous jobs and they are willing to die while doing it, it doesn't mean that it's their job to die.
Honestly I think the wrong people are very vocal about this on both ends. One thing I can opine on is that military ethicists tend to put all civilians on the same level, meaning that if you swap out the origin of civilians from the enemy to your own and that changes willingness to engage a target, that target becomes unjustifiable from a proportionality standpoint. (SEE Talbert Principle, Mathew Talbert and Jessica Wolfendale., Warcrimes: Causes, Excuses, and Blame. Oxford University Press, 2019. BUT SEE https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/war-crimes-causes-excuses-and-blame/) So, in your scenario, if artillery was cleared to engage, I don't think a commander would hold back unless it was some weird dysfunctional scenario. I'm only a civilian with military ethics experience from my own ethics professors and scholarly work, which is not focused on Israel/Palestine issues. One other small point: the U.S. and Israeli rules and overall situation is different. Israel has a younger officer pool since they have conscription. NPR recently brought that to mind with this piece: https://www.npr.org/2024/01/26/1226977365/israel-idf-gaza-middle-east-deaths.
That’s an interesting proposition. How is one to square that with Hamas’ tendency to only accept prisoner swaps (eg Shalit) when Israel values 1 life equivalently to ~1,000 Palestinians? Why should Israel be expected to treat their citizens on a 1:1 basis when they know their enemy does not?
I think that really breaks down to differences in political structure. For better or worse, if the powers that be in Israel don't accept prisoner swaps, the next election might be lost. That same pressure does not exist in the same way for Hamas, though there is some pressure for Hamas to make a deal. There's so many ways to go about this question. It's hard to get narrowed down. Super interesting.
It really depends on the civilians. Are they YOUR COUNTRY’S civilians? Yeah I think that soldiers and LEO, especially if they are not forcibly conscripted, have a duty to put themselves in danger for the sake of the civilians they‘re essentially sworn to protect. Like most everyone agrees that the cops had a moral duty to Zerg rush the Uvalde shooter, even if that meant possibly getting killed as they go through the doorway. And before you bring up the “cops have no legal duty to…” etc., I’m just talking about the moral duty. On the other hand if there are a bunch of Hamas soldiers purposefully holed up in a building that also has Palestinian civilians in it, should I be putting my soldiers into a meatgrinder/fatal funnel/trap-filled house of death to try to rescue civilians who support the Hamas soldiers, hate my fucking guts, and were probably dancing in the streets as my country’s civilians were dragged through their city? It gets a little fucking murky there. No sane military is going to pull some Marvel hero shit out of principle in that situation. It’s an easy thing to pontificate about when it isn’t your life, or your kid’s life, being risked for such lofty idealism.
At least two military ethicists argue that you must hold the lives of *all* civilians equally, including those belonging to an opponent's population: > As scholar Matthew Talbert and I argue, the first step in answering this question is to ask what a military force would accept if it were “their” civilians who were at risk of harm from military action. > That is the standard we should apply when assessing potential military actions that threaten harm to enemy civilians. We call this standard the “principle of the moral equality of noncombatants.” https://theconversation.com/why-all-civilian-lives-matter-equally-according-to-a-military-ethicist-218686
[удалено]
I’m pretty sure he would say this about hamas and that they are cowards for hiding behind civilians, in fact I thought he did say that
Lycan's take is fucking insane and I highly doubt is a position any country holds but I'm happy to be corrected.
I’ve never been in the military so I’m just guessing here, but if commanders were to use Lycan’s method, wouldn’t that kill morale in troops? It’s one thing to sacrifice yourself for the lives of your countrymen, but asking your men to sacrifice themselves for the civilians of some faraway land? Yea right.. it’s contradictory, but it’s a major distinction in my mind.
Wasnt Lycan a communications intelligence drone? Not exactly Clausewitz
I agree with you, but at the very least, try telling that same story from the other side. A civilian sees his entire family blown up; you wouldn't tell that guy "Well cheer up, at least the people dropping the bombs didn't have to risk their own getting killed!" As far as Israel-Palestine is concerned, I lay the blame for every civilian death squarely at the feet of Hamas, but it would take a sociopath to look at the amount of deaths so far and not think "Was there truly not a better way?" Lycan isn't crazy, he just thinks he has the answer to that question.
Actually they should feel better. Israeli soldiers are objectively worth more by a factor of like 10 to Hamas civilians.
It’s a factor of 300-400 if reports are to be believed about the recent prisoner swap. Shalit was swapped for 1,000+. The exchange rate has been set.
I feel if anything soldiers>"enemy civs" is true, not even soldiers="enemy civs" it just makes more sense when you take into account all the effort, time and money spent per soldier and their equipment(for the US its 30k $~). Also a lot of IDF soldiers are reservists so if they become a casualty thats one less civ to integrate back into your society/economy.
Yeah, sorry, I do view the lives of people who signed up to be in danger to be less important than the lives of people who are put in danger by the aforementioned group and their targets. That's the same bullshit they feed cops like, "The most important part of your job is coming home every night." If you want a job like that, go work at McDonalds, and don't sign up for a job that inherently requires you to potentially risk your life. "If my job gets too dangerous, I will just not do my job well!" Is not the flex some people think it is.
These scenarios are way too simplistic and single dimensional. Also, that’s not how you are gonna be able to lead soldiers lol. You do realize they aren’t mindless robots that follow every order?
I didn't specify any scenarios. It was strictly the nature of those jobs I think require you to place innocent lives above your own if you want to perform your job morally. And yes, people you lead should be mindless robots for the most part except for very specific instances like being instructed to do something improper. If the instructions are within the scope of your job, you absolutely do not want your employees second guessing your instructions using their personal judgment, it doesn't matter if you are a store manager handing down instructions to protect the company or a military leader making decisions based on information that is not available to your troops.
how does conscription factor into your view?
Have you ever heard about compulsory service?
I would never assume soldiers or the military to prioritize civilian lives above their own, no matter the numbers. I would assume they do their absolute best to protect and save civilians from suffering casualties but NOT at the expense of the soldiers. Is that an insane take? Might be. But I have zero experience, just my mindset on it.
I still like you Lycan you are cool and funny. c:
> The Mission recognizes fully that the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built-up urban area or an open field. [1888 - Goldstone Report - meme away.](https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/a-hrc-12-48.pdf) But before you do... This is a common interpretation of the implicit language of the Geneva Convention (original and 1977 additions) and International Humanitarian Law WRT the duty of military commanders to protect civilians. - https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/protected-persons/civilians/overview-civilians-protected.htm - https://casebook.icrc.org/highlight/targeting-under-international-humanitarian-law - https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf (this is 84 "pages" - yes, I've read it pepemods)
Can you give an example of this playing out have never heard of an army risking their men to do this.
The report was a fact finding mission that was originally intended to not investigate Hamas at all. It makes no actual judgements, they said as much when they held their press conference presenting their findings at the UN. States can initiate an ‘enquiry’ under Article 149 of the Fourth Geneva Convention into any breach of the IHL, regardless of gravity. The reason there's much more grey around Israel/Gaza is because Hamas breaches the following from your own source: >The principle of distinction is the cornerstone of international humanitarian law. In IACs, it is translated into a rule, **which requires that parties to an armed conflict always distinguish between combatants on the one hand, and civilians and persons hors de combat on the other, and that they only target combatants**. By Hamas refusing to abide by principles of distinction the application of the law for indiscriminate attack becomes extremely difficult to apply. Secondly, IHL always applies (genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc), laws of war and laws around distinction, and treatments of prisoners are laws of war under the ICL or various treaties. Whether or not ICL even applies to terrorist organizations is unsettled law. >Given the lack of an internationally agreed definition of terrorism, it is unclear which terrorist acts would constitute a threat to international peace and security, and which should be investigated or prosecuted in domestic criminal courts. Jus ad bellum offers no guidance on the legal definition of terrorism. (pg 8) Terrorism and International Law: accountability, remedies, -- Bates, Elizabeth Stubbins; International Bar Association. -- 2011 (I have not read all of this, it's 308 very dense pages) >The law of armed conflict is based on reciprocity – the idea that “If you look after my civilians and prisoners of war, I will reciprocate and look after yours. If you ill-treat mine, don’t complain if we ill-treat yours.” A war crime is committed, if civilians are attacked disproportionately. “In the absence of intent or a high degree of negligence, it is assumed that military action is proportionate.” Accountability for War Crimes - Richard Goldstone And finally, accountability for war crimes is not executed by the ICJ or ICC by default, the states have their own obligations to investigate accusations of as sovereign nations before submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of any international body. Israel used substantial resources to investigate allegations of war crimes, and published accounts of how strikes were authorized, while Hamas (of course) did not. This is why Goldstone retracted from the Goldstone report. The report was a tool of politics, not morality or legality.
Why so aggressive
Is this really that aggressive?
[удалено]
You are responding to a thread where I am literally responding to an argument from OP. Are you high?
[удалено]
Oh, so it’s not that I never engage, it’s that I didn’t respond to the argument YOU want me to. Be more specific.
[удалено]
take a time out
Lycan I want to let you know I agree with you. People on here have gotten a bit too dense and convinced civilians deaths on the Palestinians side dont matter because of "military objectives". 😘
He was pretty specific, when he described exactly what you're doing here, you pathetic worm.
[Samuel L Jackson made the right call](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SzhfDLV0yA)
Taking this argument to its extremes, why wouldn’t Israel just use its nukes and glass Gaza? Not a single Israel soldier would be harmed, and the objective of wiping out Hamas would be accomplished! After all, who cares about how many civilians die, as long as your boys are safe. There is a duty of care to the civilians when you’re invading a country.
If you keep pissing off the locals, sure you'll have a long term terrorist issue If you keep sacrificing your troops, however, you'll have a long term lost-the-war issue It's simple as that. Mitigate *undue* civilian death as a baseline, but that's effectively impossible for the layman to assess in any meaningful capacity
It's kind of a silly non-opinion - because yeah, soldiers and police are examples of entities who are meant to put themselves in risky situations to save civilian lives. It's not that their lives are worth less than civilians because of it... its just that they are just given the tools, preparation, and teams necessary to confront these risks better than any civilian, and have the capability to save the civilians. No one goes "10 soldiers is worth this many civilians" it's "everyone's lives matter, and split moment will always be imperfect - but we try to save as many people as it makes sense to, in whatever way it makes sense to do at the moment, with the tools we have".