This is not StarCraft.
this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2025
272 points (98.9% liked)
politics
26546 readers
2257 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
More like the fog of whiskey.
Odd. When I was young, we called that "shitfaced drunk".
Typical pattern with this guys:
- It didn't happen. FAKE NEWS!
- It's someone else's fault.
- Why are you still talking about that? We have more important things to deal with!
- There were extenuating circumstances...
- It's actually a good thing that happened.
So we're currently at step 4 with this one. In a couple of days they will be saying that it's actually good to do war crimes.
MFer thinks he is playing Warcraft 3.
He may not have seen the survivors, but he ordered them to be murdered.
This criminal will be hanged.
A: Not at War
B: he's previously said he was watching live
C: we only know about it because other people were watching that same stream so it must have been clearly visible
I think it's pretty safe to say Hegseth is likely thrashed off his ass 24/7 if this is the explanation he's trying to go with after everything else he's said. This administration is run by the dumbest Fascists ever.
I don't see this "Fog of war" on total wine's website. Am I searching wrong?
Total Wine doesn't have everything.
I did actually find several breweries who make hazy IPAs called "Fog of War": Armor, Artillery, Bad Weather, and Easy Company. Easy Company is in Massachusetts and Artillery is in Pennsylvania, so I wouldn't be surprised if at least one is available in stores near him.
what is this? a 4x game?
Apparently it's against Pentagon policy to install a map hack.
Warcrminal.
I refuse to believe that the US military doesn't effectively have black sheep wall enabled constantly.
Can someone explain to me why this second strike is such a big deal but the first isn't?
It's literally the textbook example of a war crime. Seriously, firing at people in the water after their vessel has been sunk is the example they use in military handbooks to explain what an illegal action is.
The first is a big deal. All of these boat strikes have been a big deal. The problem is, despite not being at war, and the President not having the authority to declare we are, that's basically what is happening, and no one with authority is stopping it. However, that makes the nature of these boat strikes "debatable" to some whether they are actions of war, which would make them potentially legal military actions, or whether they are extrajudicial international attacks during peacetime, i.e. murder. They also claim that they have absolute knowledge about who is on these boats, what drugs are on them, where they are going, etc. and are claiming the right to strike them based on these details that privileged knowledge that they arent sharing. This obfuscation makes it harder to call them out on their bullshit even though it really shouldn't matter anyway, in terms of the legality of the strikes.
However, there is absolutely no legal justification, whether it be an act of war, drug enforcement, border control, etc. of double tapping survivors of a sunk vessel. As has been pointed out plenty, this exact scenario is literally the textbook example of an unlawful order that soldiers should not follow. So this particular situation bypasses that "debate" about whether these strikes are legal in the first place, and bypasses the obfuscation of information about who is on these boats and what activities they are participating in. Those things are irrelevant to the cut and dry fact that this double tap is illegal, full stop, and every level of command and execution of this specific action is culpable for either a war crime or murder. That's why this is such big news. The certainty.
Because there could not be a more cut-and-dry example of an illegal order than firing on helpless shipwrecked survivors, that's why.
The idea of rules to war might seems strange but I think the idea is that there IS such a thing as a legitimate military objective. For example if the boat IS a legitimate military threat to your nation, you've neutralized that threat by sinking the boat.
"Exterminate people you don't like" is NOT a legitimate military objective, so the second strike is NOT legitimate as the legitimate military objective has already been achieved.
But yes, I think many would agree that the initial strikes were ALSO illegal, it's just that the administration is hiding behind a declaration that these boats are a legitimate military threat so they create a grey area where they are unlikely to ever be held accountable.
The second strike is blatantly illegal and there's really no sane defense for that, by defending the second strike they're essentially admitting to being psychopaths who aren't behaving like legitimate military leadership.
It's just always cut and dry, firing on the ship wrecked is always illegal they are considered non-combatants at that point.
This is actually the example they use of an illegal order in the DOD manual.
Page 1117 18.3.2.1 https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23892053-dod-law-of-war-manual-june-2015-updated-july-2023/
Ok, so it really is defined very precisely and everyone should have known.
They were non-combatants the entire time.
That's not even the argument the administration is making. Their argument is that the drugs themselves are the weapon/combatant. So they argue it's perfectly legal to destroy the drugs and hand wave away the collateral damage of the humans operating the boat. But if the drugs were already destroyed then their entire argument goes out the window for a need for a second strike.
Its stupid, I know.
Oh cool, so the same twisted logic as charging someone's money for a crime in asset forfeiture.
They’re both crimes, but the first strike has a lot more ambiguity attached to it. The first strike could be argued that it was a legal order. It’s not, but the fact that it could be argued means it is being argued. So discussing the initial strike just leads to bad faith arguments at best.
But with the second strike, there is absolutely no ambiguity. It was blatantly illegal, through and through. The only real defense the entire chain of command has for cold blooded murder is “I was just following orders.” And as World War 2 already proved, that isn’t a valid defense for war crimes.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Because it's illegal to shoot survivors of a ship you have sunk.
I understand this. My question was, why it wasn't illegal to shoot the ship in the first place.
It was. But, the illegality of the second action is absolute, while the first action is up for debate (by morons).
Yeah both is illegal. But they have an "excuse" for shooting the ahip by saying it's smuggling drugs. None of that is confirmed or even close to any proof.
But as others have said shooting the sinking surviors is 100% without a shadow of a doubt a fucking warcrime.
Why not both?
But, really, it's the order for no quarter that is the main course of illegality. Simply put, even if they make a claim of bad intel or "I was just following orders", the extra twist of the knife in the no-quarters order is in of itself a fundamental illegal knife twist that prevents him from getting away with any "whoopsie daisy" defense.
This narrative is pissing me off. They're both war crimes, but the second one is a bigger war crime.
Is that when you're not quite drunk enough to black out but you're just browning out a little between lines?
load more comments
(1 replies)
Last week he didn't order the first strike.
At the beginning of the week he didn't order the second strike.
Today he ordered the second strike but didn't see any survivors.
America is fucked. Any other timeline the FBI and MPs would be marching into the Pentagon and arresting him and everyone else involved for murder
They definitely should, but would they? After what the US did to Guatemala, Chile, etc. I doubt that would ever happen, although the war criminals would probably be more subtle.
Once you get to the information age and put enough research points in your tech tree to unlock satellite imagery, fog of war is cleared.
Maybe someone was smoking big cigars in the air conditioned office of war?
Why would you scream about killing them all of you didn't think anyone was still alive?
And why did you attack it again if you thought there was no one alive?
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't think it counts as "the fog of war" if there is no war.
Also no fog.
Also no drugs
Look, I'm trying really hard here to not make a stupid 'the front fell off' joke because the subject is serious, but you guys ain't makin it easy for me.
It's not a LITERAL fog, you warthog-faced buffoon.
At the time, the useless bag of shit was praying to the Porcelain God.
Murderer.
view more: next ›