Assuming you're both referring to the events of 19 March, they did not eject from the F-35. I know of no event during this war where an F-35 crew ejected.
It can, that's part of why these newer planes cost billions of dollars per unit. Assuming the plane is still controllable though. Usually in that case you wouldn't eject, but its technically possible. There was a case where a US pilot ejected on accident and their plane landed itself.
As an aviator, that right there counts as an emergency landing. A hard one.
They limped it back home, they didn’t ditch a very sensitive airframe over enemy territory, I’d call that a win and the pilot deserves a medal for that.
Military aviators train for this, being alone behind enemy lines (look up SERE school if you’re curious, one of the craziest training courses outside of special forces) and there is a special force just for aviator recovery behind enemy lines, US AirForce Pararescue. Hopefully they’ll get the aviators back quickly, the last thing our country needs is American hostages making this ridiculous war harder to stop.
TBH I went through SERE school (aircrew) and I questioned its value, since the training is in eastern Washington/northern Idaho area mountainous woodland environment and all the evasion they showed us relied on that kind of cover and "bushcraft"
And you know, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran are definitely not eastern Washington lol
Iran isn't just central Tehran. Look up the Zagros Mountains and the Alborz Mountains. Or just look at a picture of the northern Tehran skyline, it is at the foot of the Alborz, a huge mountain range. There's plenty of woodlands and forest too. Some parts of the Hyrcanian forests get over 50 inches of annual rainfall, which isn't Forks, WA, but it is substantial.
Not really, if you're entering Iranian airspace from the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf, or Europe, you're flying over either the Zagros Mountains or the Alborz Mountains. Unless you crash/eject in a city, you're almost certainly going to be in the mountains. Look at a map.
You'd get additional specific training for deployments and the skills are transferrable. But obviously they can't train everyone in every biome that we have, otherwise you'd spend a whole year just flying around to different areas of the country to train and on a 4-year contract it's just not going to work time-wise.
This is the view outside of Fairchild AFB, which runs the training course in question.
Wikipedia reports that Spokane has a Mediterranean climate, as does Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province where this F-15 is reported to have been shot down.
WA has a crazy collection of microclimates. Ho oh rainforest, alpine at the various mountains, Yakima desert, mild and wet near Seattle, dry plains in the east of Cascades, etc.
far from pc but i grew up hunting along the snake and the old guys always called those hills "Bin Ladens" bc it looked like the pictures of where news reported he was hiding
Sounds like typical one-sized-fits-all, checkbox military nonsense. Perhaps there are better and/or climate-specific SERE courses in one or more services? Because if it's ineffective, it's a waste of time and money more so than usual and puts expensive-to-replace personnel at risk.
Seems like it's all about vacating the area and busting out the CSEL (or NGSR when materialized) personal SAR comms is the best way out, or it may well turn into a weeks(s) long, nonstop spy-shit ordeal getting out. Perhaps some forethought and packing with knowledge and specific local-appropriate items (and chunk of cash) would help more than MIL-STD Walmart camping aisle prepper bullshit.
Military personnel captured as prisoners of war are not hostages. Unlike embassy personnel held hostage during the 1979 revolution, it's unclear if military POWs have any value to leverage against the US, considering how its leader feels about about "people who get captured" and "they knew what they signed up for". We're only hearing about this so the administration can get ahead of the narrative instead of Iran. Otherwise, it's doing everything it can to hide information about the cost of war in terms of monetary cost and casualties.
The hostages here are the so-called "allies" in the Arab world who received no notice of the invasion and were sitting ducks for wide-scale regional retaliation from Iran due to them hosting US bases.
to have POW, you first need to have a W, but to have a W you need to go through appropriate legal channels which trump has specifically avoided to be able to launch this collection of war crimes assaulting foreign countries along israel and causing havoc on a global scale.
No, we actually train to be tortured and held if caught, but everyone knows the risks before you take off. Captured marines or soldiers have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re clear eyed about it.
I've found that most of our population has almost no connection to the people that actually fight wars, and therefore have no idea what they think. With the exception of a few criminals, none of us desire to commit war crimes. None of us want to send rounds into civilian infrastructure, seeing regular people struggle to get food, fuel, and water in Iraq did not make me feel powerful and it was obvious it did not advance our goals on the ground.
The jingoistic commentary people hear from politicians and former military podcasters that don't fight anymore is repugnant, and this backsliding in the (at least attempt at) honorable execution of war is not going to bode well for our country. It's probably trite when we're double tapping girl's schools, but I want to think that purposely striking civilian infrastructure, universities, hospitals, water resources... this was all something "we" didn't do.
This is actively devaluing the meaning of being a Marine. Maybe this already happened in Mai Lai, maybe this was further chipped away by Abu Ghraib, maybe letting Eddie Gallagher off... etc etc. But this feels different in a way I've never felt before.
Why do it, then? I'm not trying to be inflammatory or ask loaded questions here, I'm genuinely curious (as someone who, as you note, has almost no connection to the Americans who fight in wars; I have friends who are vets, but have been out of the military for years), and I just don't understand.
I absolutely believe you when you say that none of y'all want to commit war crimes, fire on civilian infra, bomb schools, etc. And yet that's happening right now, in Iran, and the soldiers continue to follow orders and carry out this travesty. I get that refusing an order is not something any soldier will do lightly, but when a school gets hit in Iran, do the soldiers conducting that strike not know what they're attacking beforehand?
Even if they don't, do they never find out? Do they not see that some large N% of targets that have been hit have ended up being civilian targets? When they're ordered to fire on a new target, do they not question whether or not it's a civilian target, given past history?
I ask these questions from near-complete ignorance; I really do not know how this works, or what kind of information any officer or soldier has when they're about to follow the orders they've been given. But it just seems insane to me that people continue to follow these orders, assuming they know how many civilians have been killed through previous actions. I just cannot imagine being in their position, and actually trusting that my superior officers were ordering me to do things that will later turn out to be morally defensible. (If any of this war is morally defensible, which I don't think it is.)
I don't have a good answer for you. I expected the upper and middle officer corps to conduct themselves with honor and they aren't.
I'm going to bet that pilots aren't briefed to hit a school, they get a target package that says this is a legit target, an IRGC command post or something. There are multiple layers of detachment between the person picking coordinates, entering them into a JDAM, and the pilot releasing that weapon so who is ultimately responsible (and this is by design, everyone can tell themselves a story right now to sleep at night.)
But you do know what you hit, in the version of the military that I was in there would have been a detailed investigation into the chain of failures that led to striking a school with children in it. I'm sure it weighs heavily on the every person involved in that decision. Cold comfort for the parents of those kids, but something like that leaves a life long scar on the people responsible.
I guess it makes some amount of sense that information isn't always distributed in huge amounts of detail, outside of the specifics on what they need to do.
I hope that those detailed investigations are still happening.
And they have DOD lawyers (with backup from the DOJ) saying the whole thing, and specific targets, are legal. Along with that, much of the most Sr leadership (of both combat forces, and legal) have been fired and replaced with MAGA loyalists.
There have been so many crimes and zero accountability. I frankly wouldn't know where to start, but maybe a good example is "collateral murder", which Assange has been persecuted for revealing for the better part of the past two decades.
We want them to. At the same time that we sit at our keyboards and philosophize about how soldiers should refuse to carry out unlawful orders, we [collectively] do not really want them spending all that much time pondering it. The most obvious cases, sure, but in general we want them to do what they are told, and do it quickly. That is why there are lawyers in the field to make fast judgements.
The better solution is to try and not routinely find ourselves in the position of the country being led by criminals.
"No stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy-building exercise, no politically-correct wars. We fight to win,” Hegseth said."
It's a self-soothing performance of self-importance, like everything else this administration does.
This is not an administration run by adults who model consequences.
Everything happens to reassure the Commander in Chief - and the people behind him, like Miller and Vought - that they're exceptionally special and gifted people who can have anything they want and do anything they want, to anyone, without limits.
There's pretty clearly negative value in having civilian leader whose most notable accomplishments are being a TV opinion host, and quitting the Army because they decided he was too dangerous to be allowed to serve as a guard for a presidential inauguration.
To understand this rhetoric, you have to understand how important American Football is to the majority of the voting American public. We love a team that hits hard and wins the trophy! The good guys winning! What’s better? Have you seen any of the Marvel movies? The objective good guys always win! Win win win
I live in a deeply rural area. Nobody is like this in regards to war. I wish I could put on blast the deep worry I see everyday. Perhaps there is a cultural difference between the rural and red cities? It's hard not to take note of drafting the entirety of your young family to go shoot guns and die even if it was 100 years ago.
It’s not not woke, it’s wokeness of a different kind. They exclude those who disagree with their brand of orthodoxy, it seems like to me they’re firing anyone who says no to the ground invasion.
We should be clear that Hegseth is not an officer in the US military, and this is clearly an illegal order. The fact that he has fired the JAGs who would tell him that is unsurprising, but does not change the facts. Any such killings would expose the individuals to a USMCJ Article 118 charge.
"In 2024’s The War on Warriors, Hegseth argues at length that US forces should ignore the Geneva conventions and other elements of international law governing the conduct of war."
“'What if we treated the enemy the way they treated us?” he asks. “Would that not be an incentive for the other side to reconsider their barbarism? Hey, Al Qaeda: if you surrender, we might spare your life. If you do not, we will rip your arms off and feed them to hogs.'”
He wrote a book in which he openly advocates for war crimes. Maybe, just maybe, it pays to believe him.
He probably said "no quarter" because it sounds cool and doesn't really know what it means. The most ironic part is how he is an avowed Christian warrior and says "no mercy" when mercy figures pretty prominently in Christianity.
It’s the one constant about this administration: you’re always wondering ”is this incompetence by not knowing what they’re saying or incompetence where they know what they’re saying”
Right but the reason we have rules against people declaring no quarter is to prevent a race to the bottom. It is absolutely reasonable to respond to a no quarter declaration in kind, which is... again... the entire reason we have prohibitions on it.
They won't face any US law. AIUI, they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
The best shot would be to turn them over to the ICC
> they have been getting letters from the DOJ office of legal counsel that say it's legal. This effectively immunizes them (the DOJ can't turn around and charge you with a crime, if they advised you beforehand it was not a crime).
This is not true.
OLC opinions are just that: opinions. They are non-binding and non-promissory. They are an important factor in any assessments as a norm, but definitely not dispositive and not legally binding.
The only real barrier is the pardon power, but I'm personally fine at this point with totally breaking the seal, trying and jailing every criminal in the administration(++), and consider the pardon power gone for good. Small price to pay.
Yep. And war crime seems to have lost all meaning in the US.
But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
> But, even if you dismiss the idea of international standards, this is clearly very bad for US soldiers (and sailors, airmen, etc). I wonder if they see that.
Poor choice of words. Hostage taking is illegal, but any captured US aviators would be prisoners of war, whose detention is entirely legal as long as they're treated humanely.
edit: I'm baffled by the amount of downvotes pointing out the objectively correct terminology can get. Its not a matter of opinion, military personnel captured by the enemy are pow no matter their treatment. A hostage, by definition, has been abducted.
As a matter of fact, if Iran comes out of the war having not committed war crimes they’ll have a huge worldwide moral and public image victory over the United States and Israel.
Iran already has won on this matter, which is a major concern considering it is an islamist dictatorship that recently killed thousands if not ten of thousands of its own population.
yet israel and the US both come out are infinitely worse in comparison, committing massive war crimes, lead by incompetent far-right extremists blinded by ideology and motivated by greed, personal gain and attempting to evade legal issues.
They already targetted civilian infrastructure, so they already commited war crime. They also threatened to attack universities wh8ch is war crime on itself (after attack on their universities).
How am I reading this? Wasn't the regime mowing down tens of thousands of its own citizens prior to this war? I mean, not a "war" crime, I guess, but it seems ludicrous to give them any "moral victories".
You forget that there's different moral codes in the world. There is yours, which is effectively Judeo-Christian and you judge Iran's islamist regime as reprehensible because of the amount of lives they destroyed. Brutally destroyed.
There is also "pride" as a moral code, where appearances of military superiority are what matters. At the start of the conflict the US and Israel appeared 100% invincible, and now they appear ... 99.9% invincible. So ... "victory for Iran" ... I guess.
In reality, of course, in response to "Israeli agression", Iran has severely damaged literally everyone who might have been on their side, with near-zero damage to Israel and US, while their own forces are dying in large numbers, while boasting of it. What an achievement! But that's where appearances matter. If they boast of it enough, maybe they can convince enough people ...
I’m not convinced that Iran has damaged their relationship to the gulf states any more than the US and Israel have damaged theirs. The US has clearly demonstrated that they are willing to use their bases in an allied state to start a war of at least questionable legality that has the entirety predicted outcome of massively damaging the allies economy, possibly for decades to come. All the gulf states will soon re-evaluate their security relationship with the US. On the side, the US has also severely damaged NATO, to the point that NATO states have closed their air space to US planes involved in the war. On top of that, some European states have blocked flights transporting weapons for Israel. Not to mention the fact that Iran and the rest of the world has been demonstrated again that negotiations or agreements with the US do not mean anything. China will look appealing as a guarantor or peace soon to a lot of people.
I believe the long term damage this has caused in immeasurable and the only way to remedy this would be that both Israel and the US find some way to investigate who and why started this war - and possibly prosecuting any war crime that may have occurred.
Also, the EU needs to grow a spine, fast.
But alas, I have no hope of that happening. We’re all worse off for that.
Wouldn’t that make it more damaging to the image of the US rather than less damaging? The brutal autocracy observes the international laws of war while the US orders no quarter, bombs schools, and destroys civilian infrastructure as a major part of its strategy?
Recently, Trump has also said he’ll destroy the entire civilization. Tell me how that’s not planned genocide, per the accepted international definition of the word. I’m pretty sure Iran has made no such statement about Western or even US culture.
Iran has for nearly fifty years pursued unilateral hostilities against the US and Israel, including funding numerous terrorist groups and militias to wage war on them. It can’t negotiate its way out of this quagmire because the IRGC’s core ideology and mission is hatred (and hostage-taking).
In addition to waging continuous offensive militia operations, it’s been cultivating a conventional and nuclear offensive option which it most definitely would use if it had it, because again, the IRGC’s reason for existence is to “resist” Israel and the US, by which they mean obliterate those nations. What Trump recently has been saying about Iran is exactly what Iran has been saying for decades about the US and Israel.
One of those militias went all Leroy Jenkins in 2023 and prematurely initiated the current hot war, which Iran is losing. In frustration, Iran has embarked on a terror campaign of bombing neutral neighbors to punish them for … friendly diplomacy with the US I guess, and bombing civilians in Israel. And annexing an international waterway.
What Trump and folks on this board don’t seem to realize is that war with Iran is more like fighting a bunch of lawyers. You hurt them kinetically and they make you feel like you hurt yourself, get all confused. They slaughter 35k of their own people and shut off the Internet; the US mixes up the boundaries of an IRGC naval base in a much more constrained horror and the UN starts strutting around.
Narratives do matter for winning wars and between Trump derangement syndrome and the IRGC’s natural cleverness at permanent victimhood, it’s the narrative that’s at risk in a war between great nations that, unfortunately, sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades.
I doubt anyone actually thinks the Iranian regime is good in anyway. But I thought the whole points of MAGA was "No new wars".
And now there's a new war, without any real reason (other than something something Netanyahu and they don't like the US) against a country that is a much more sophisticated adversary than Afghanistan or Iraq.
"sadly has been perfectly inevitable for decades"
Surely by now we know nothing is inevitable? Especially over the range of decades.
It's not unilateral, the US have been deeply involved in Iran since the 50´s and the overthrow of the democratic government in order to allow the US companies to continue to steal Iran's oil.
Then of course they had to deal with Irak who invaded them using US weapons and intel. Including use of sarin gas, thanks to US intel.
The argument about democracy in Iran is hypocritical given that neither Trump or Israelis care about it at all. They just want weak client States.
The Iranians didn't wake up hating the USA one day and a little techouva would be healthy if we want this conflict to end.
So you're saying, as soon as a party does something serious against you, say taking your embassy staff hostage (just to select a random thing one might do), then ANY future and continued hostilities, no matter how immoral the means used, are justified, even 50+ years later? I mean, you're singing the praises of long-term revenge. Oh and the 1979 revolution was a socialist revolution that even had support from the KGB.
So that's great. Then, of course, anything the US does against Iran's islamist regime is justified according to you! Excellent news, that. Strange, I got a different impression from your tone.
P.S. you are now supposed to say that it merely means "you understand why" they act like this, not if it's justified. Even though you absolutely won't understand the US killing a few hundred Iranians in revenge.
I'm saying that violence between the two countries wasn't unilateral and that the US have a long history of aggression against Iran, culminating now. My post is quite clear.
Ending a cycle of violence also requires to accept where you did wrong (i.e "techouva"). The US have been bombing the world since 1943, with for the most part, little effect aside on the suffering of the civilians under fire.
The only intelligent move to stop the cycle of violence with Iran was the nuclear deal framework made by Obama. It was of course was terminated by Trump, which worked very well as the current war shows.
Bombing Iran during negociations, killing their supreme leader and negociators, commiting war crimes, won't clearly solve anything.
When I read such post, I feel that many people supporting the war in the US just have a sadistic instinct that needs to be expressed, whatever the consequences. Hurting (or, as the Trump aides say "fucking") other people won't fix the emptiness of your lives.
Trump’s bargaining position has been: stop raising foreign armies to attack Israel; stop trying to sneak into the nuclear club, because we know what you’re going to do.
Translated to human terms: stop threatening the US and its allies.
The US position is not sadism, it’s how every nation except Iran tolerates one another, live and let live.
Russia and the US— they competed strongly with one another during the Cold War but generally respected red lines. Russia withdrew its kinetic threat from Cuba, the US knew circa 1998 that expanding NATO through the old Warsaw Pact would make no friends in Moscow. Strong, rules-based brinksmanship all the way around.
Iran is just about ideological extremism. Sometimes there are rules, or used to be, but the IRGC signed up a bunch of unprofessional clowns to wage total war on its behalf and, at core, talks like “mutually assured destruction” would be a total “win”, provided Israel was on the other side. If either superpower exposed that kind of philosophy in the Cold War can you imagine the calamity? It’s inherently destabilizing.
Trump's position is to do what the Israelis ask him. Nothing else. Iran doesn't threaten the US. On the other hand, the US has multiple times helped Iran's enemies (Irak) commit atrocities[0] or enforced a coup to continue stealing its oil. As stated by Tulsi Gabbard, there was no imminent threat to the US before the war.
Few things:
- Please don't talk about “rules-based brinksmanship” when the US commits bombing and decapitation strikes during negotiations. Or when they send real estate developers to discuss nuclear programs[1].
- Iran had agreed to limit its enrichment and allow inspectors in to verify it. Of course, it was too much for Israelis who didn't want another competing power in the region. The end of the agreement led Iran to restart enriching its uranium at higher rates, having the (expected) complete opposite effect than what was wanted. Who's the clown here? Trump.
- The US' “ally”, Israel, currently has a far-right religious Zionist government that ticks all the boxes for ideological extremism. It also has a MAD doctrine regarding its illegal nukes. [2]
- Hezbollah was born after the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. While it was structured by Iran, its ranks are made of Lebanese citizens. Many non-Shia Lebanese will agree that it's the main defense against the invasion of their country, which is desired by the Zionist right to achieve their “greater Israel” project[3]. While Hezbollah is problematic now, its removal should be accompanied by a commitment by Israel not to invade its neighbors and to stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
In general, it's a recurrent strategy by Israel: favor frictions, violence, and fuel the most extremist of your opponents, to justify retaliation, and then allow you to extend your position. For instance, Israel was helping Gulf States to fund Hamas before the recent war started.[4] The US is an accomplice, as Israeli money heavily funds its politicians. It's not an ally.
The United States is perfectly capable of performing atrocities without Israeli permission, and Israel is completely dependent on US funding and weaponry, not the other way around. And who's actually ever managed to put a leash on Trump?
I really think this sort of "Israel is in control" thing leans into conspiracy lala land at best, and certain very dangerous and bad territory at worst.
The last two operations in Iran were done on the instigation of Israel. The bunker bombing and the current war. The administration gladly admitted it.
And Israel is, through AIPAC, one of the largest donors in congress. Myriam Adelson, an Israeli billionaire and outspoken zionist, gave Trump $100 million for his campaign. Of course she is outright buying Trump, asking him to support the illegal colonization of the West Bank.
On top of that, evangelical christians, who tend to be radical zionists, are Trump's core voter base and fund directly Tsahal and Israel through donations. You can learn directly from the actors in this excellent israeli documentary:
So yeah, not really a conspiration, it's all out in the open. It's also not just a foreign policy, Trump threatened to end universities' funding if they didn't forbid criticism of Israel and allowed the administration to monitor them. A large part of his aides and government members are also Jewish and zionist advocates, which of course steers the policy.
Jared Kushner even does real estate promotion in the illegal colonies, when he's not sent to fail negociations regarding nuclear enrichment
If you start with the view that Israel has a right to exist, like Kuwait has a right to exist, what common ground then is possible with the IRGC? Did Saddam Hussein think it was a winning strategy to lecture the world about Kuwaitis pulling the strings in the original Desert Storm?
The IRGC and Iranian leadership assume that since Israel is just one nation, and not a big one, that they really really want to annihilate, it should be no big deal for everyone else to accept. But that is a dangerous, even existential proposal on both sides, as the IRGC knows, partly because the US position worldwide is about projecting security for partners.
Iran actually occupies a mirror position regarding the Palestinians, who have fought and suffered greatly. So Iran strives to reverse the positions of the Israelis and Palestinians— not to raise all ships, but swap them— which isn’t a moral cause from an impartial perspective, it’s just picking a different winner.
The US and Israel sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians, while Iran has continually plotted and waged war, which it now has on its home soil. The US and Israel have genuinely sought to peacefully resolve the situation, while Iran has not, not in my lifetime.
Israelis didn't "sought peace through negotiations for decades regarding the Palestinians". They have a long history if violence and apartheid policies, since the beginning. Negociation attempt have been done under the pressure of the US, and Israelis commonly break ceasefires, and favor the most extremist of their opponents to keep the tension going.
The problem with Israel is that the initial colonization was mostly illegal and problematic. Now, time has passed and countries should recognize its existence, while Israel should also stop its plans of a "greater Israel", including invading and bombing all of its neighbors. And stop the illegal colonization of the West Bank, along with their policies and ideology treating Palestinians like animals.
Israel is a rogue state, with illegal nuclear weapons, that protects criminals from all over the world and refuses to extrade them and commits war crimes in the open. Your way of thinking, which it is a pure white dove in a sea of evil muslims won't solve anything : Israelis have to do techouva if they want peace.
Unfortunately, the current far-right government pursues a religious messianic plan, including the destruction of muslim holy sites to rebuild the temple, so they won't accept a lasting peace.
Iran is however not an existential threat to Israel, as long as it doesn't have a nuke. So the efforts should concentrate on this aspect, to which the Iranians were open to discuss...until the Israelis assassinated the negotiation team and the supreme leader that could have imposed a desescalation deal.
The US has been hostile to Iran for longer than Iran has been to the US.
It was Trump who ended the anti-nuclear treaty with Iran and the regular IAEA inspections within Iran.
Hamas does get some funding from Iran, but they are also the elected government of Gaza. Meanwhile Israel has destroyed hospitals, schools, and civilian homes throughout Gaza and the US is intentionally and preciselu destroying civilian infrastructure in Iran while Israel complains about missile attacks in civilian areas.
Prisoner exchanges are a pretty strong motivator for any group, even hardline ones. If the Taliban was up for exchanges I think the IRGC is pretty likely to want to keep prisoners for that too.
I would note ISIS put out some high res, professionally edited video of burning a (Jordanian?) pilot to death while inside a cage. Quite savage, but the propaganda effect is more profound than about anything else I've seen.
Yes, after that video it was clear that Daesh and everyone in their little caliphate would be hunted down. And it was, they were. They were attacked everywhere they tried to return to. From minor girls returning to the Netherlands to 45 year old men (trying to) return to South Africa, all were persecuted, and that one video had a lot to do with that happening. After that video, even muslim nations started hunting these people.
And yet, they are still around, made famous and split into separate groups, still actively fighting on multiple fronts all over Africa. And if the Iranian government falls for sure they will be coming back with a vengeance in the area.
That's a lovely thing to say, but if your existence is being threatened by an aggressor, I wouldn't blame you for throwing out the rulebook.
In my view, if someone invades your territory and starts attacking you, you have no obligation to follow any sort of "principles" or "rules" when it comes to how you fight back. Anything you need to do to the attackers in order to defend yourself and your people is, by definition, morally defensible.
(Do note that I said "need". Doing arbitrary messed-up things that don't actually further the goal of driving back the attackers is not ok.)
They tried restraint and proportionality for decades and where did that get them? 47 years of non-stop aggression, espionage, sanctions and the mass deaths of Iranian civilians.
There is no if. We've already done that. So yes, we are no better than them. So answer the question. Why would Iran follow conventions it's enemy that started a war of aggression is not following?
When they struck desalination plants in Bahrain would be an easy example. You can say that they are retaliatory strikes, but they are certainly against the Geneva Conventions.
Iran's use of cluster munitions to attack swaths of Israeli cities is also against the Geneva Convention (though I'd again point out that we started hitting civilian targets in Iran first).
Both sides have violated the conventions, but the US and Israel have violated them to a much greater degree (especially Israel and all their attacks on Lebanese civilians not to mention razing Gaza).
Especially after the double-tap on civilians and first responders the US just did on that bridge. Or the threat for no quarters from the secretary of defense. Or the threats to destroy critical civilian infrastructure for water or power.
First: count the responses to my thread of people suggesting Iran cannot/should not be held to the Geneva convention: 4,5 (I'm counting the Hegseth comment as 0.5)
The point is there are a great deal of people, even in the US, who advocate that it is unreasonable to hold people fighting the west in general and US in particular to the Geneva conventions. I don't know where this idea comes from, because morally it is of course indefensible, but there you go.
I would expect the number to be bigger in Iran. I would expect the number among IRGC extremists to be even higher than in Iran in general.
Second: war crimes have 2 interpretations. First as violations of the Rome treaty which require that the state where the warcrimes happen has signed the Rome treaty. Iran hasn't.
The second interpretation of warcrimes is that they are violations of the Geneva conventions, and the reaction would be that the UN security council intervenes. Well, the UNSC has preemptively declared they will not hold Iran to account for warcrimes (to be exact: France, Russia and China have declared they will veto). So at minimum you can say that Iranian warcrimes will not have any "official" consequences.
The world and the UN have decided that warcrimes "don't count". As in there will not be any consequences unless the government of the country where they happened implements those consequences.
Third: Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage. This is already a violation of the Geneva convention. They have also kidnapped hundreds of foreign nationals of other nations and are also holding them for ransom, which is also a violation of human rights, ie. a warcrime.
So those are my three reasons Iran won't hold itself to human rights standards.
France vetoed proposal about opening the straight by force. France and Europe in general dont want to dragged into this war.
Also, I dont see UN punishing Israel or American war crimes either ... so it makes sense to not apply "whatever goes" standard to aggressors and different one to the defender.
> Iran has already kidnapped a US civilian (a reporter, Shelly Kittleson) and are holding her hostage.
Expect there to be a lot of operatives of the US in Iran. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but it wouldn't be the first time a CIA or something operative is caught and this is the cover.
You mean the army shooting 40.000 protestors just 2 months ago including 1000+ children, then executed a child that won an international wrestling competition, now accusing everyone else of warcrimes?
I think I'll need some reeducation on this concept of "dignity" you speak. Could you explain further?
None of those numbers are verifiable. The opposition has every incentive to lie. And let's not forget there was a lot of armed agitators amongst those protesters. Mike Huckabee let the cat out of the bag with a tweet boasting of how a mossad agent walks beside every protester.
You're confidently replying to a point that I did not make. Protesters were certainly killed, both peaceful ones and agitators. In addition, government claims hundreds of police officers died and places of worship were attacked and burned.
My point is there is simply no verifiable numbers because both the opposition, particularly diaspora groups backed by the regimes enemies, and the government have incentives to be inaccurate. So trying to use the death toll as a talking point is not a good idea.
It's completely naive to underestimate the role of Mossad and the United States in the unrest. The former through actual Iranian nationals in their employ, and the latter in engineering the dollar shortage that led to the unrest in the first place (Scott Besant bragged about this).
I didn’t downvote you, but a terse “well actually it’s prisoner of war” doesn’t really add to the conversation. Imagine doing that in person, you’d annoy everyone around you.
If you explained why it’s distinct and what that might mean for downed crew I think it wouldn’t have been down voted
No, they wouldn't annoy everyone around them, that's just your subjective projection. I, for one, found it an important distinction that highlights how easy it is to skew a narrative towards a more sympathetic one. It saw it as having similar value to those Instagram posts juxtaposing headlines reporting on "dead Palestinians" vs "killed Israeli victims".
If the US military would like this war to stop they could not fight it, that would be pretty easy I think. Probably not without consequences, but that would show actual courage. Whereas dropping bombs on civilian from afar shows zero.
If they landed anywhere near a town they are probably captured. The kuwait video from the f15 that was hit with friendly fire was crazy. Like 6 suvs worth of locals immediately surrounded this guy and they were threatening to beat him with a galvanized pipe.
Wouldn’t it be wiser and more considerate to your fellow soldiers to pull your side arm and go out like a man. Unless you’re able to nose dive into the ground to minimize the chances of useful parts/intel being recovered by the enemy?
It’s almost shocking that people in an era of unlimited resources could see this was not renewable and important to hold, and that later in the era of limited resources, we decided to privatize this. It’s so shortsighted, willfully ignorant.
We’re about to get a preview of the world after fossil fuel extraction and some of the knock on effects. Semi is one thing, wait till you can’t get an MRI.
The people in the era of unlimited resources envisioned an unlimited future that needed to be safeguarded. The people in the era of limited resources envision a limited future that any resources would be wasted on. They are not ignorant of the negative consequences of their short term thinking, they are indifferent.
Over a number of files similar to a codebase, that are well organized (like a codebase) the coding agents and harnesses are quite good at finding information, they clearly train on them so they will only improve.
The challenge is how to structure messy data as a filesystem the agent can use. That is a lot harder than querying a vector db for a semantic query.
The code bases we’ve been using agents in had been pruned and maintained over years, we’ve got principles like DRY that pushed us to put the answer in one place… implicitly building and maintaining that graph with all the actors in the system invested in maintaining this. This is not the case for messy data, so while I see the authors point and agree that a filesystem is a better structure for context over time, we haven’t supplanted search yet for non-code data.
I have a fork, it's excellent. Complementary to something like symphony which doesn't deliver the harness you need to make working software, attractor's graph orchestration inside the loop that symphony creates can set determinative workflows with the harness openAI (and StrongDM) were talking about using to test.
My personal system uses property testing, fault injection and fuzzing layered on top of playwright and e2e testing behaviors against a digital twin system I have to credit StrongDM for inspiring again.
You mean llia Polosukhin, who is recognized as an AI founder and co‑authored the landmark 2017 paper “Attention Is All You Need" while at Google Research? /s ?
Yeah I do, first it’s a joke but second have you used Ironclaw? It’s buggy vibecoded software. Bring your Claude code with you to get it working if you try it.
So yeah, the Primegean joke about adding “but make it secure” to your prompts is true about this, even if Illia is a genius and I look up to his work.
I think this misses the beauty of a plaster wall. Level 5 drywall has nothing on a skilled artisan with plaster, and yeah you can’t hang things through it but it also lasts hundreds of years. My walls are 120 years old and robust, the kids haven’t damaged them and they’ve more than held up.
You can hang things through it just as easy as drywall too. Light stuff just put it right into the lathe. Heavy stuff, with both types of walls you are going to want to anchor into a stud.
Looks like it's improved even further - I'm seeing that model listed with 512x384 resolution, and it's $300 on Amazon.
Pretty incredible! I felt like I was getting an amazing deal when I paid about $1000 15 years ago for a FLIR E4 that I could flash into an E8. I might finally retire that in favour of one of these.
I would be amused if the actual reason for upscaling is that a 256x192 display is hard to source and that the firmware is partially shared between models with a display and models without one.
It connects to a cell phone for display so the image is scaled either way. The issue is how the chosen algorithm may be adding non-existent detail or not. If you disable the enhancement you get nearest-neighbor. The true sensor size is all that really matters. Flir has nothing in this segment that comes close to that.
Drywall is trivial to remove and repair, I have no issue cutting walls with a circular saw or vibrating cutter to get access then patching it.
I have seen another method for making walls that were accessible though, from a homesteader/ hand tool woodworker and carpenter. His walls were 24” thick with huge areas for piping and electrical and had 4x4’ removable wood panels.
I wouldn't call it trivial. First you have to determine where to cut it; if you cut the wrong area you have to cut again. All the steps in repairing it either take time, are messy, or require some skill, and the time adds up (e.g. waiting for the patch to dry before you can sand; waiting for the primer to dry before you can paint; etc.).
And then you have to match the surrounding paint, which is all but impossible since even if you have the same color, the original will have likely faded over the years, making your newly applied coat a mismatch, so now you have to paint the entire wall (no fun when it's a big wall). And if you had wallpaper instead of paint, good luck to you unless you saved some extra scraps.
All in all, an access panel would make the job much simpler.
Ok, I glossed over color matching the wall patch. Fair.
But there really aren’t many walls you need to open in a house. There is probably 2-3 wet walls, so unless you need to retrofit some ducting why are you opening a wall? Code says there are no hidden wire junctions, so you’ve just got continuous runs of romex that are secured before they terminate… what do you open a wall for?
Most of the drywall repair is just physical damage to the drywall itself.
In theory, I'd rather get at something through an access panel than via cutting and patching drywall, but practically speaking, you're right: it's rare to have to open a wall, and an access panel that isn't specifically for something you need to access regularly is just a nice-to-have, and not even necessarily all that useful unless it provides the access you actually need at the time.
The thing is you might not need to access your electric or plumbing for like 100 years. You do get a panel where access is presumably on a more regular schedule: usually the shower hookups are accessible from a closet.
I agree with this analogy, as someone who professionally codes and someone who pulls out the power tools to build things around my house but uses hand tools for furniture and chairs.
No job site would tolerate someone bringing a hand saw to cut rafters when you could use a circular saw, the outcome is what matters. In the same vein, if you’re too sloppy cutting with the circular saw, you’re going to get kicked off the site too. Just keep in mind a home made from dimensional lumber is on the bottom of the precision scale. The software equivalent of a rapper’s website announcing a new album.
There are places where precision matters, building a nuclear power plant, software that runs an airplane or an insulin pump. There will still be a place for the real craftsman.
The correlative effect is quite clear, i.e people who have high omega 3 levels (eat a lot of fish) have health benefits.
But in random controlled trials Omega 3 supplements have not had convincing effects.
It might be because the supplements aren't very good, or because there's actually something completely different going on, like fish displaces less healthy foods from the diet.
'the supplements aren't very good' would be believable - a quick glance at the market shows a whole lot of fish oil supplements that provide low amounts of Omega 3s in large amounts of fish oil. Look closer, and you realize a bunch of them are rancid too.
Fatty fish (salmon, mackerel, herring) has quite large amounts.
Some people aim for huge amounts of EPA/DHA but I don't think there's really much evidence that you need 3g/day or whatever the latest broscience is.
Mackerel is particularly high although it doesn't taste great to me compared to salmon, 100g of mackerel has ~4g of EPA/DHA so eating that a couple of times a week is probably more than enough.
Also there is some (although much less) in white fish, there can be significant amounts in shellfish, and tinned tuna has a surprisingly high amount. So all of that adds up if you eat those as well
Sardines, too, which are also fishier than salmon but tend not to be salted the way mackerel is.
Unless you’re also consuming all the oil from the can, prefer fish canned in water to canned in oil — because apparently the omega-3s can leach out into oil, but they’re not water-soluble.
Btw, trout is also up there (though not as high as salmon) and is a lovely mild-flavored fish.
Not sure what you can find in your country but we have tinned mackerel (with tomato typically) in Norway. I can highly recommend.
It's not thaaat fishy, I didn't grow up eating it. After having it a few times it really grew on me.
Super cheap and an easy way to get it into my diet. I have 2-3 tins per week. I eat it for breakfast mashed on bread (our bread is like a hard cracker), sometimes with a bit of mustard, or butter spread first.
Yep this is common in the UK as well and with the tomato I do prefer it to fresh mackerel, but it's still too "fishy" for me, if I tried to eat 3 tins a week I'd get sick of it pretty quickly.
Maybe genetics, I'm guessing all my ancestors grew up eating dairy and some meat and not so much fish.
It used to be traditional in England to eat kippers for breakfast once a week but that's more or less gone extinct
It's really surprising how many people don't realise where omegas come from and just default to "more fish". Fish get omegas from alge. Simply skip the middle man and all the nasty side effects that has in the form of animal exploitation and harmful substances for humans they contain.
Cows eat grass for protein, we can't really skip the middle man and eat grass to get protein.
I don't know if it's true, but it wouldn't be unusual for there to be benefit from getting omega 3 from fish rather than algea because of something like this. AFAIK, we mostly only know about the benefits of eating fish.
What's also interesting that some recent studies show eating eggs every day actually is harmful, most likely due to the Omega3 to Omega6 ratio.
So here we go again. First it was cholesterol, which was then rebutted, so people (myself included) started eating eggs every day. And now this. You can't win!
As I understand it there's no good evidence that n3:n6 ratio matters, _as long as both are at adequate levels_. Studies showing the ratio to be of concern achieve a "low n3:n6 ratio" by low n3, rather than high n6.
Eggs are believed to lead to adverse outcomes because of:
1. Their high cholesterol content.
2. Their SFA content.
I'm not sure what you mean by cholesterol being rebutted. The only thing like that I'm really aware of is the dietary guidelines de-prioritising dietary cholesterol, but that decision was made because when making DGs, people want to focus on the biggest levers we can pull. Dietary cholesterol _does_ have a negative impact on health, but it also has a threshold effect at around 400mg/d after which it has considerably less impact (unless you're part of the ~20% of the population who are "cholesterol hyper responders").
Because most people eating a SAD are already at that threshold, the decision was made to take dietary cholesterol off the headline recommendations, but if you read the details in the DGs and the meta-analyses that drive them, they still point to lowering dietary cholesterol as a smart health move.
I frequently see this change portrayed as "no longer recommending the lowering of dietary cholesterol" or "admitting they were wrong about dietary cholesterol", but that's not really what happened.
Welcome, always nice to talk about this stuff - nutrition science is a very interesting field because it's such a slippery subject to get right. Every day's a school day and I'm never as right as I think I am!
That take on eggs sounds about right regarding numbers per day and risk. If you look at the ACM risk associated with various food groups in figure 2 from this paper (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S00029165220492...) then you can see the ACM risk hitting significance at around 55g/day, which is about 1 large egg.
Dave Asprey is such a wild dude. Who is eating rice for protein? Bizarre straw man!
reply