Evilsandwichman, 1 year ago

“During the war, American military and civilian officials stretched the term “military target” to include virtually all human-made structures, capitalizing on the vague distinction between the military and civilian segments of an enemy society. They came to apply the logic of total war to the destruction of the civil infrastructure in North Korea. Because almost any building could serve a military purpose, even if a minor one, nearly the entire physical infrastructure behind enemy lines was deemed a military target and open to attack. This expansive definition, along with the optimism about sparing civilians that is reinforced, worked to obscure in American awareness the suffering of Korean civilians in which U.S. firebombing was contributing.”

One of the things I never understood is why Western countries (as we’re not the only ones who do this) bother coming up with these laws and rules of engagement and such if they’re just going to basically be interpreted in the most liberal sense to allow one to do whatever they want. Take that adviser to Trump who suggested sending out a drone to ‘deal’ with migrants before they crossed the US border or entered American waters because they wouldn’t be protected by the US constitution at that point. What even is the point of these laws if the intent is ignored and people simply find a way to play the system?