Interesting look on "collateral damage"

Weird. The media and the political machine is still raging about how the Syrians and Russians are monsters and war crimes for bombing hospitals, and operating in a heavily populated area against the moderate rebels. (Which is, admittedly, a horrible thing to do. I'm not trying to say that it's all daisies and rainbows; it is a brutal and quite frankly, hard to justify thing to do.)

However... let's see what the very same people say about doing the very same thing when they themselves are doing it. (I've already written about the interesting contrast about Mosul and Aleppo, so let's leave that part out for now.)

Bombing hospitals - Russia vs USA. (Or Saudi Arabia, but they did bomb a school, so it's not the same I guess.) Mind you, bombing hospitals (and their parking lots) is against the law even IF enemy combatants are hiding in it, yet Israel is quite happy to do so; again, no angry accusations of war crimes there. (Even though in this case it is a deliberate action. As is using white phosphorus in built-up areas against humans.) It seems like you cannot avoid making mistakes when fighting in a city; and the Russians hit a hospital by mistake. Still a war crime, I guess, right?

Well...

What happens when the US and its allies kill people?

Well, of course, it's unintentional, so it's not a crime. It's a kind of weird logic, since you normally can't claim this in front of a court, but let's just think about this. The US and its allies conduct operations in a sovereign country against the wishes of its legitimate government, and kills the soldiers of said government. (The US also supports "moderate" rebels fighting said government, let's add hastily.) But it was unintentional, so it's cool. It's also regrettable when they unintentionally drone weddings and innocent people in general, who happen to be in the wrong place (in their own country) at the wrong time. While we KNOW that any collateral damage the Syrians and Russians cause is absolutely intended and should be condemned.

Interesting.

Mosul's corpse

You remember how the heroic US supported Iraqis are fighting for Mosul? (And how many civilians died as an unfortunate side-effect, and not as a deliberate war-crime, unlike in Aleppo where the exact same thing is happening, only the Ruskies are helping the Syrians against the rebels there?)

Well, unsurprisingly -as it happened again and again at every single US supported coup, intervention or US lead war, somehow the communities they wanted to save against the evil dictator (many times a person they have supported in the past), evil terrorists (whom they supported), etc., etc., were utterly destroyed in the process, leaving only hatred behind. Somehow these interventions are always followed by ethnic and/or religious hatred being unleashed in the communities involved. You can say that the operation was successful but the patient died.

The funny thing is -and I'm not using this word as in "hilarious"- they keep doing it, and people keep reading about it, yet nobody raises an eyebrow about this disastrous track record; it's as if the past has disappeared. It seems like people's memories are about the same as a goldfish's.

And this is why retarded, racist morons get elected for president.

The difference between war crimes and human shields -how the media and politics see the same thing through different glasses

Weird things you can read in the news.

Siege of Mosul (incredible bloodshed, street fighting and massive civilian causalities) is something that we should look at as the forces of good fighting the forces of evil. (I think ISIS is supposed to be the evil here, but given the fact that the US has been supporting these very same guys in the past makes this distinction a bit murky.)

Anyhow. Mosul is great.

Aleppo, however... at Aleppo we see the evil Ruskies and Assad massacring civilians and attacking helpless rebels who are definitely moderate, and would not chop heads off even if they could. Also: the fact that NATO is putting troops right on Russia's borders is something that will ensure peace. Definitely. How else to make sure you have peace other than provoking a nuclear power? By talking to them? Don't make me laugh. (And let's not forget who those rebels really are.)


So. There is an interesting duality how the media (and politicans) deal with bombs that kill civilians depending on who drop said bombs. We can safely conclude that victims of Western airstrikes are collateral damage only. Also, victims of weapons sold by Western powers to barbaric kingdoms and used on civilians are fine. They don't kill civilians. We're the good guys. (Things can get a bit weird when your allies murder your allies, but what the heck. Let this one slide, I say.)
But victims of Russian bombs, however, are victims of a war crime. And the Ruskies are barbarians. Let's just forget the siege of Fallujah, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians of US forces (not to mention the use of white phosphorus against human targets, which is, you know, a war crime).


It's kind of weird when the two sides do the same thing, but they are not really the same. US (or Israel) hits a hospital: oh well, mistakes are being made, sorry. And the terrorists were hiding there deliberately, anyhow, so it's not a mistake. They were also using human shield, forcing us to kill all those people, while at the same time we hit the hospital by mistake.

Ruskies hit a hospital: WAR CRIMINALS. OMG, THEY ARE TOTALLY EVIL. Poor insurgents who are forced to hide in a city against the superior force! Let's send them more weapons!


Seriously. Do a google search. I can imagine all these people's spirit discussing how one side were murdered by an evil regime, and how the other were just collateral damage. I'm sure the victims of Western bombs take a great solace in the knowledge.


It's astonishing. It's so bad, even the Independent noticed it -after several decades too late.