this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2026
355 points (99.4% liked)
Australia
5192 readers
83 users here now
A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.
Before you post:
If you're posting anything related to:
- The Environment, post it to Aussie Environment
- Politics, post it to Australian Politics
- World News/Events, post it to World News
- A question to Australians (from outside) post it to Ask an Australian
If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News
Rules
This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:
- When posting news articles use the source headline and place your commentary in a separate comment
Banner Photo
Congratulations to @Tau@aussie.zone who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition
Recommended and Related Communities
Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:
- Australian News
- World News (from an Australian Perspective)
- Australian Politics
- Aussie Environment
- Ask an Australian
- AusFinance
- Pictures
- AusLegal
- Aussie Frugal Living
- Cars (Australia)
- Coffee
- Chat
- Aussie Zone Meta
- bapcsalesaustralia
- Food Australia
- Aussie Memes
Plus other communities for sport and major cities.
https://aussie.zone/communities
Moderation
Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.
Additionally, we have our instance admins: @lodion@aussie.zone and @Nath@aussie.zone
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Using an example where the USA breached the Geneva convention against chemical warfare is not proving whatever your point is.
To answer your question, they justified it at the time as a herbicide to kill the jungle the Vietnamese were using for cover. This was only a cover story however. They clearly knew how dangerous a toxin it was, given the safety protocols they had around the chemical for it's troops. At best, if it were merely a herbicide, it's use would still constitute a war crime for destroying civilian and non-combatant food sources.
It's actually a bit of an International scandal even today that the USA has not formally apologised for its use. They have at least provided limited compensation for their victims in Vietnam with long-term effects of exposure to Agent Orange. Though I'm not certain those programs continue today under their present administration.
To be honest, the USA should apologise for being in Vietnam in the first place. It had no business being there, and nor did Australia.
There has never been a ruling by the UN, ICC, ICJ or whatever about the use of agent orange breaching the Geneva conventions or being a war crime. All legal analysis is post hoc. Today it might be, but it's irrelevant to this foreign agitators ridiculous claims.
You assert they knew based on nothing but a hope and a dream. Chemical warnings are designed to prevent misuse, and I would love to hear you claim the warnings on the box were "will cause generational harm". In fact it's the exact opposite because soldiers were incredibly ignorant of the toxicity of the chemical, a fact veteran advocacy groups have spoken of at length.
They also stopped using agent orange shortly after more information came out about those kinds of harmful effects in 1969, which goes against your claim.
If you think any of this is convincing of the claim "America and ISIS are the same" you've got your head in the sand.
Dude, this happened in living memory. Americans are completely open about it.
Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime. Source
It's all a bit moot, since the USA gives zero shits about the UN, ICC and when they can hide it, the Geneva Convention. Hell, the ICC list of War Crimes is like a runsheet of what the Americans got up to in Vietnam. And we haven't even discussed Napalm.
Have they improved? Yeah, probably. But then you watch the Collateral Murder video, and question that.
I haven't equated the Americans with ISIS. But I can understand why an Iraqi would and would give their position serious consideration.
See the problem? And even if I concede all of this, it doesn't get someone closer to the original claims being made, it's just a whataboutism based on a lazy bastardization of the word terrorism.
I don't recall him saying he was an Iraqi, I just know he's a lying campist shill dirtying up the discourse with slopulist slogans and conspiratorial brainrot like they all do. Whether American interventionism is good or not isn't at issue here, it's about whether it's terrorism.
Whatever circumstance of his upbringing have led him to these asinine positions aren't important, I just know that these talking points are destructive nonsense and inevitably function to sweep for actual terrorists who target civilians openly and explicitly like ISIS.