this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
765 points (88.8% liked)
Political Memes
8917 readers
2730 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Acceptance of collateral damage is a well-established principle in international law. While bombing weddings has a clear argument with regards to the immorality of it, it would be difficult to argue that it's a war crime to target enemy combatants simply because they're in a civilian context. As the civilian casualty ratio of the drone strikes, as assessed by outside and critical sources, was around 15%-20%, which fits pre-drone strike numbers, it would be extremely difficult to make any serious argument that the drone strikes were exceptionally careless about collateral damage relative to the military gain by current standards and thus constitute a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
Selling weapons is not a war crime.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
You mean... trying to close it, restoring the standards to that of an ordinary prison instead of a torture camp, and releasing the vast majority of the prisoners when Congress refused to let him close it?
If you think the president, and for that matter one of the least pro-Israel presidents since I've been alive could have easily "just done more" to prevent Israeli war crimes, you're out of your gourd.
Again, I reiterate: "Every other major accusation I’ve seen stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of ‘war crime’ as ‘anything that’s bad’."
If there's a military purpose proportional to the damage inflicted. Bombing a wedding because a few attendants are enemy combatants is not that.
That would simply mean only some were war crimes compared to a majority that were legal. Even if you're hitting one wedding for every nine enemy training camps, that one wedding is still a war crime. Also, I'd like to point out that the CIA is literally on record claiming international law is inapplicable to their drone strikes (back when they were still done by the CIA). Those are not the words of people not committing war crimes.
Which is not the only thing America was doing under Obama.
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Saudi_Arabian%E2%80%93led_operations_in_Yemen
Sounds real war crime-y to me.
Obama did a lot to improve the conditions at Guantanamo bay, but still:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#International_law
This is one thing Obama didn't change to my knowledge. See also:
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Barack_Obama#Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
This one is on the light end to be fair, but still a war crime.
I mean, Reagan did it, literally with a phone call. US presidents can "just do more" to prevent Israeli war crimes that they fund, arm and protect. Also least pro-Israel in what way? The only instance of him going against Israel that I know of is JCPOA, which does nothing to absolve him of Israel's war crimes in Palestine.
Killing enemy combatants isn't a military purpose?
When drone strikes of weddings are discussed, individuals are targeted while the wedding is ongoing, the wedding itself isn't being fucking carpet bombed.
Again, the wedding is only a war crime if the creation of civilian damage is excessive in comparison to the intended military damage inflicted. Considering that the civilian casualty ratio of drone strikes was not significantly different from prior non-drone military action, it would be a very fucking tough sell.
The CIA is absolutely committing war crimes - that's not the same as saying Obama is a war criminal. The CIA, in fact, has repeatedly and blatantly violated direct orders from the executive, to the point there was a whole hearing over it during the Obama administration.
I would have objected, but I read the cited source in the wiki article
That makes the accusation of war crimes more credible over supplying the Saudis against Yemen. I concede that there is a valid argument there, though I would contend that the discussion involved is still primarily cautious and over there being an argument for liability, rather than a clear-cut case that assistance to a war-crime committing belligerent, even with exhortation to show greater restraint and precision, was absolutely without question a war crime.
... and also that that ruling is startlingly broad.
The citation is over the Bush Administration, and explicitly says as much. The Obama administration performed an extensive review of prisoners and changes of policy, resulting in some being tried, many being released, and those retained retained under internationally agreed-upon standards for military detention under the laws of war.
The DOJ claiming the president has the power to do something he hasn't and did not do (as Obama added no detainees to Gitmo) is a war crime?
If I hear this shit take on Lemmy one more time, I'm going to fucking explode. In other words, please attend my funeral to be held within the next week (closed casket).
Would you like to remind me what the powers of the US president are, again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_States_relations#Obama_administration_(2009%E2%80%932017)
These strikes can kill and injure dozens, so when you target someone in a crowded space like a wedding you are going to get a disproportionate amount of civilians, unless the wedding has an Al Qaeda corner. And this is before you even get into whether targeted killing (aka extralegal assassination) is even legal, which is apparently not at all guaranteed.
Surprisingly, bombing weddings is bad (and a war crime) no matter the method of delivery.
Well he kept approving those war crimes.
I'll concede the point on Guantanamo.
Duly noted.
Leadership of the executive branch and supreme command of the armed forces? Control over foreign diplomacy unless Congress specifically intervenes? Sharing of arms, intelligence, and diplomatic cover is all under the purview of the president.
Okay so.
*Effectively giving Israel the cover necessary to continue its occupation of Palestine.
**He presumably could've vetoed the bill, or made any sort of objection at all. He shares responsibility for these decisions as the one implementing them.
Admittedly I'm ignoring all the anti-Israel stuff in the article. but he's still guilty of Israel-related war crimes.
I'm about done with this topic, through no fault of your's, mind.
My position on drone strikes at weddings (wrong, but not inherently a war crime any more than any targeting of valid enemy combatants in a civilian milieu is; ie that the question is of relative military gain proportional to civilian collateral damage) hasn't changed, but the broader issue that support of war criminals is enough to qualify as a war crime since 2013 by international law creates a much stronger argument for Obama as a war criminal, I concede.
I additionally note, though, that the question raised was what made Obama the least pro-Israel president of my lifetime, with you citing only a single issue he was anti-Israel on, while the wiki article notes Obama's much broader opposition to Israel to a satisfactory degree.