[kyruzic]

Dropping bombs on innocent civilians in a third world country doesn't make you a hero either, but that doesn't stop our media from calling all members of the military involved in the wars in the middle East heroes.

Also read more carefully they never said the "terrorists" were heroes they explained the point of view of the "terrorists"

[beebmam]

> Dropping bombs on innocent civilians in a third world country

Is this really what political analysis has stooped to on HN in 2023? A total abdication of any attempt at nuance, or framing, or examining underlying intentions.

Such a shame.

[topato]

I'm starting to think there needs to be a "born post 9/11' disclaimer, as I believe living through that period, while remaining acutely aware of what happened in the Middle East during that period, is where the nuance originates

[nonethewiser]

There is a shocking amount of hindsight bias with the US war in the middle east which seems to entirely forget 9/11. Including those who remember 9/11.

[tachyons]

If we go by the number of civilians who got killed and the loss of infrastructure, You can compare the impact of 9/11 and the so called counter operation. Assuming you consider value of civilian life is same for a US citizen and a non US citizen.

[hnbad]

As someone who was old enough on 9/11 to be able to follow the events in real time (watching CNN while also following discussions on news aggregator websites at the time - yeah, those already were a thing): 9/11 did not justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the erosion of American civil liberties, nor the mass surveillance against its own allies later uncovered by Snowden.

That the evidence used to justify the invasion of Iraq was fabricated was blatantly obvious at the time and foreign heads of state's statements on it were based more on diplomacy than credibility. The invasion of Afghanistan was easier to justify due to the presence of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan at the time and the cooperation of the Taliban with Al Qaeda but it was widely understood as being motivated by retaliation against Islamism more broadly rather than an attempt to take out the group that orchestrated the attacks. Neither invasion was justified by international law, not that this matters given that the US is not party to the International Criminal Court and has previously pledged to take military action against anyone attempting to extradite US citizens to the Hague.

9/11 was a horrible loss of civilian life and the collapse of the towers itself was a horrific mass death event even without taking any of the planes into account. But the US's invasions and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq had a civilian death count far exceeding 9/11 and the US deliberately arrested "enemy combatants" and held and tortured them with no legal recourse, often for years without trial. Not to mention the state of the entire region during and after the occupation leading to the rise of ISIS and the return of the Taliban to power after the toothless puppet regime in Afghanistan collapsed.

That Al Qaeda was the Bad Guy doesn't make the US the Good Guy. At best the US is the Less Bad Guy. Preferable but not to be celebrated.

A lot of people born after 9/11 also have no recollection of the levels of racism and jingoism that followed the event: Muslims being ostracized and openly attacked, brown people in general being mistreated on suspicion of being Muslim, the lengths American corporations went to to spite the French for voicing concern when the US announced its intend to enter war in the Middle East.

And a lot of people think they are seeing exactly the same play out in Israel and Gaza since the Oct 7th attacks, except Israel didn't even take time to mourn the victims (or track the hostages) before engaging in a month-long retaliatory bombing campaign with a mind-boggling death toll.

[ben_w]

> That the evidence used to justify the invasion of Iraq was fabricated was blatantly obvious at the time and foreign heads of state's statements on it were based more on diplomacy than credibility.

It seemed obvious to me at the time when I watched a clip of the discussion in the House of Commons, but in retrospect what I thought was a weakness of the government position shouldn't have been seen that way, as (I learned from Johnson violating it) the standard for all statements in the House to be true.

Otherwise, I think I agree with what you say.

[kyruzic]

I was alive during 9/11 and my dad was in Iraq as contractor for the US military.

[Bamafan]

What nuance needs to be added to blowing up hospitals?

[reducesuffering]

The nuance where disinformation and lies have convinced you the wrong people blew up a hospital [parking lot]?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explosio...

[megous]

https://www.msf.org/kunduz-hospital-attack-depth

[x3ro]

Even if this particular explosion was indeed a misfire, there have been many other attacks on health infrastructure including convoys since then, according to the UN.

https://www.emro.who.int/images/stories/palestine/WHO_oPt_Si...

[hnbad]

You seem to be lagging behind on news coverage.

After Israel had an (apparently justified) prolonged media war to combat the claims that it bombed that particular hospital, the IDF then deliberately bombed several other hospitals and even went to the lengths of publishing a 3D animation of an alleged underground complex to justify their intent to bomb the largest hospital which at that time was known to provide shelter to hundreds of civilians. Israel then also posted pictures of piping it misidentified as a tunnel entrance in the debris of a part of the hospital that it had bombed.

The problem with the disinformation and lies is that just like killing civilians this is somewhat anticipated coming from Hamas but catches people off guard when Israel does it and especially when Israel does it so blatantly that it's hard to pretend they're not doing it. Heck, there are now multiple incidents of fabricated evidence relying on the audience's inability to understand Arabic or ignorance of heavy accents that have been shared by official Israeli social media channels. This includes the supposed radio communication demonstrating that Islamists accidentally the entire hospital before it became obvious that it was likely not an Israeli attack and the damage was constrained to the parking lot. Heck, Israel's Twitter account even shared an IDF-affiliated account celebrating and justifying the attack on the hospital prior to this.

So, yes, the IDF most likely did not drop the bomb that apparently blew up that hospital's parking lot. But the IDF most definitely did drop bombs on other hospitals and has stated its intent of doing so and has justified doing so, both before and after this particular explosion. And Israel government social media accounts have incorrectly claimed the explosion as an IDF attack as well as shared fabricated evidence to the contrary and general mis- and disinformation.

In this war more than any others so far, everybody lies and no-one can be trusted. And strangely not only can Israel not be trusted when it denies wrongdoing but also when it explicitly claims it. At least the anti-Israel and pro-Hamas propaganda is normally more predictable. Israeli propaganda at this point feels more like an evolution on Russian propaganda which infamously tries to DDoS any attempt at fact checking by making multiple mutually contradictory claims in short succession.

[talldatethrow]

Dropping a bomb technically doesn't make you a hero, and that's why Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Trump are not considered heros.

Signing up at 18 years old to go fight in a foreign country after just a couple hundred hours of training, does make you a hero compared to those that sit at home their whole lives and do nothing to help maintain society. If heros that go into the military didn't exist, I'd be speaking German or would have never come into existence because my relatives would be dead.

[andrewinardeer]

I disagree that voluntarily signing up for active military service automatically creates a hero. Even when "compared to those that sit at home their whole lives and do nothing to help maintain society".

Signing up for military service can be described as "heroic" or "honourable" at best.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Claiming that everyone who didn't sign up to kill people thousands of miles away from their society, were just "sitting at home their whole lives doing nothing to help maintain society", seems a bit dismissive.

To avoid a flame war, I won't explicitly say they do more for society than iraq war volunteers, but teachers and doctors do plenty for society, for example.

[talldatethrow]

Most teachers I know, and I know several because I've been in a relationship with one for a while now, are basically doing a disservice to children. I hear their stories and all I can think is "you shouldn't be a teacher, you're hurting these kids chance at learning".

Even the girl I'm dating sounds like a terrible teacher but what am I supposed to do about that. Not everyone can be good at their job. There is basically zero process to remove the bottom few % of teachers no matter how bad they are.

[ImPostingOnHN]

Funny, in my experience many people think the same thing of those who espouse the 'societal value' of volunteering to kill people in iraq, especially over society-benefitting professions like teaching and medicine.

[talldatethrow]

I don't deny there are good teachers, I was lucky enough to have a few.

I'm just saying that there is a decent amount of teachers that are doing a disservice to kids by not getting out of the way and letting the good teachers have a shot. But hey, she wants a Tesla and there's a union, so Johny must suffer.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I'm not necessarily denying that there are good people who chose to go kill people in iraq, I'm lucky enough to know a few. Many were brainwashed into thinking their choice would be heroic, perhaps some sort of revenge for 9/11, or a mission to find WMDs, instead of a cost to their country.

I'm just saying there are a decent amount of soldiers who aren't providing more of a value to society than those who chose to go into teaching and medicine (you keep conveniently leaving medicine out. Curious.) Especially when you consider what their presence in iraq cost society.

But hey, Cletus wants to shoot guns! Pew pew! So little Johnny must suffer reduced education to fund Cletus's overseas armed escapades.

[enterprise_cog]

Something tells me you have no clue how to teach.

[talldatethrow]

I have 16 years of experience being taught to, at a high level and succeeding at it. My GF has 5 years of experience teaching, and being totally oblivious to her performance.

She showed me her kindle recently. Proud she had read 37 books on it in 2 years. All fiction. Zero books about children or teaching. Wonders why she loses control of every classroom after about 3 months and suffers til the end of the school year.

[enterprise_cog]

I have experience being operated on, therefore I am a surgeon.

You also realize she has had the same amount of “being taught to” right?

Your disdain for your GF is pretty sad too.

[enterprise_cog]

Signing up to fight wars of imperialism to benefit the few does not make you a hero. Killing civilians doesn’t make you a hero.

However, you are right that without the brave soldiers of the USSR you might be speaking German. Or not, it’s pointless conjecture.

[kiba]

You do realize that war is ugly? It doesn't matter how justified a war is or isn't. Dropping bombs on an enemy are going to involves the risk of hitting civilians, especially if they are in a war zone, especially if insurgents or partisans are hiding among non-combatant.

If they don't die due to bombs being dropped, they are going to die due to stray bullets.

The only way to prevent that is not to go to war in the first place. However, sometime war is your only choice.

[jameslk]

Same arguments can be made about terrorism. I'd argue that war was not the only choice in many instances it was used, just like terrorism wasn't the only choice. That may not be a popular opinion for either side.

War is reactionary and somehow hasn't stopped terrorism despite its blunt usage. And terrorism hasn't stopped bombs from falling yet either.

[kiba]

War may be imposed upon you by one side, such as the invasion of a country. At which point, war stopped being a choice.

Terrorism as far as we can see is basically incredibly ineffective for inspiring any sort of changes, and serves to enrage your enemy, much like indiscriminate mass bombing often strengthen the resolve of those who are on the receiving end of it.

[ChuffedToBits]

But, circling back to 9/11, I often do wonder how the world would look like today, if America had found it within itself to not react with war to the attacks. There was such a broad outpouring of sympathy and support across the world: enough political capital for all kinds of projects.

If only a few of those hanging chads in Florida had hung differently, or if Gore had further pressed the issue...

[kiba]

What do you suggest then? I agree that our disproportionate reaction isn't the way to go.

[hnbad]

> Terrorism as far as we can see is basically incredibly ineffective for inspiring any sort of changes

I think that deserves a qualification: terrorism can be very effective against an occupying force and when it has the backing of the local population. But terrorism in its 20th century sense of "propaganda of the deed" has indeed shown very ineffective time and again.

I recall an anarchist revolutionary in the early 20th century assassinating a factory owner or somesuch thinking that his act of violence would spur the combative union workers into revolutionary action only to find out that they would turn on him instead. On the other hand there are plenty of documented successes at guerilla warfare - of course always contingent on wide support from the local civilians they were trying to liberate. Likewise, the bombing campaigns in WW2 did little to break the spirit of the civilian population and at worst only radicalized them.