United States Bombing of Hezbollah Military Facilities in Syria

[AspieAlly613]

The United States military bombed buildings used by the military wing of Hezbollah, designated a terrorist organization by the EU.

 

The attacks were in response to rocket attacks over the course of the previous week against nearby American military bases.

 

Personally, I think the bombing was acceptable, given the unfortunate circumstance of Hezbollah's immediately preceding attacks.  Restraint in this situation very well may have led to increased attacks, as it could give the impression that the Biden administration would not respond to military assaults.

 

I'm rather disturbed by the extent of the negative reaction I've seen on the internet.  I've seen political cartoons showing American bombers hunting down Syrian children, an inaccurate exaggeration of the phenomenon.  I've also seen political cartoons alleging that the only real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the bombers fly BLM and pride flags, with the implication that there should be more of a difference.  Are they arguing that when a group launches missile attacks on American military bases, that the United States cannot retaliate against that group's own military bases?  There does not seem to have been any collective punishment or targeting of civilians.

 

 

[blunose2772]

Because internet culture is all about reacting before getting the facts. The reactions I've seen are from people who didn't seem to know this was in response to the rocket attacks against the bases. 

[gisiebob]

because violent retaliation against violence is the least constructive avenue of problem solving differences between folk?

[Tetus]

16 minutes ago, AspieAlly613 said:

I've also seen political cartoons alleging that the only real difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the bombers fly BLM and pride flags, with the implication that there should be more of a difference.  Are they arguing that when a group launches missile attacks on American military bases, that the United States cannot retaliate against that group's own military bases?

The problem, as it often is in situations like this, is that you cannot view this single incident in isolation. Any given military act may be seen as justified given the existing conditions. That is, the US and its allies have forces stationed in Iraq, those coalition forces were attacked, a targeted response is appropriate. But even if you grant all that reasoning outright, there's a larger question of "how did we get here, and how are we ever going to get to a place where things are different?"

 

The US has been continuously at war for 19 years. There are kids in college who have literally lived their entire lives in a world where the US has never not been at war. Now, the US itself hasn't had to bear the brunt of most of that, but the fact that people want something to change shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

 

As for the validity of this particular target, and whether there were any civilian casualties, we've been hearing about targeted strikes and 'smart bombs' for decades, and what we've learned is that there are often, if not always, unintended deaths of civilians, either due to faulty intelligence, rapidly changing ground situations, or just plain old fashioned human error. If you take a moment to try and understand another person's perspective, I think that you can appreciate that the word of the people initiating the strike is not worth a lot in this regard. Realistically, we will never know if there were any civilian casualties of this particular strike.

 

I'll also note something that even I'm prone to, which is the distancing language and rhetoric used. Above, even after telling myself multiple times that I should be more straightforward, I found myself saying "casualties" rather than "deaths" or "murders" when referring to the killing of civilians by the US government. And I think that the political cartoons emphasizing the grotesque nature of air strikes against places in Syria are trying to get at that. At the end of the day, our literal best case scenario is that we only killed soldiers. I don't want to kill soldiers. I don't want to kill anyone. I think a lot of people feel that way, and they wish that the people claiming to be in control of the situation had a clearer path out of it, rather than a seemingly endless series of human tragedies.

[Sally]

We all live in this world, not the world that we wish it to be.  As such, war has existed since humans became humans and were capable of meaningful communication with each other.  I can't think of any country or culture that does not respond with force when it is attacked, or to fend off a possible attack.  That's what we did, and that's what we'll continue to do, no matter what specific group happens to be in power in our country.  There are always some civilian casualties, especially in countries where military installations are deliberately placed close to civilians.  Hezbollah is a terrorist group, allied with Syria's and Iran's terrorist leaders, not a peaceful organization working toward world peace. 

[Guest]

On 2/26/2021 at 5:57 PM, gisiebob said:

because violent retaliation against violence is the least constructive

Some people only respect consequences.

 

For a country to attack another with impunity, sends the message that your country is soft. Actually encourages further attacks. Think of that bully attacking that soft target that just doesn't ever retaliate, nor try to bring a stop to the bullying. You become what they call a "mark" in jail. Essentially, a marked person who is known throughout as the person who you can just walk up to, and take the shoes from, food, or the like because nothing will happen to you.

 

There needs to be a fear of retaliation, for such attacks to be deterred.

 

Why invest in powerful armies? Its not to have to use them, but rather to make someone think twice before challenging you.

 

North Korea would never attack the US, knowing what would come back to them in sheer retaliatory measures.

[Still]

The casualty numbers are probably based on the disingenuous reporting used in the Obama and Trump eras, where every "military-aged male" is automatically considered an "enemy combatant". There's no way of knowing for sure if civilians died or not.

[Guest]

On 2/28/2021 at 8:53 AM, Still said:

The casualty numbers are probably based on the disingenuous reporting used in the Obama and Trump eras, where every "military-aged male" is automatically considered an "enemy combatant". There's no way of knowing for sure if civilians died or not.

I really hated seeing how okay people were with thousands of "insurgents" being slain in countries like Iraq without even remotely questioning it. Its that out of sight out of mind level of care administered to murders that is rather disturbing.

[Guest]

Also, its unrealistic to expect no collateral damage during war, even if a simple military retaliatory measure.

 

Kids will die. Women. Innocent civilians. Etc. Just sucks that they have to pay for the fragile egos for those at the helm.

[ben8884]

I think what it is, is that if Trump had done the exact same thing for the same reasons many would view this differently.

[Homer]

What a surprise. Colour me shocked.

[Clumsy Fairy]

On 3/1/2021 at 9:18 PM, Homer said:

What a surprise. Colour me shocked.

Someone stole my crayons... 

[Homer]

On 2/27/2021 at 7:00 AM, Sally said:

The US regime is a terrorist group

FTFY

[daveb]

We get it, Homer. US bad.