Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
7hr ago
Someone online pointed out that 18.3.2.1 of the Department of Defense Law of War Manual reads:
The requirement to refuse to comply with orders to commit law of war violations applies to orders to perform conduct that is clearly illegal or orders that the subordinate knows, in fact, are illegal. For example, orders to fire upon the shipwrecked would be clearly illegal. Similarly, orders to kill defenseless persons who have submitted to and are under effective physical control would also be clearly illegal. On the other hand, the duty not to comply with orders that are clearly illegal would be limited in its application when the subordinate is not competent to evaluate whether the rule has been violated.
That second strike, if it happened, is literally in the manual as an example of an illegal order that would be a violation of the laws of war. I am as-yet unclear on how involved Trump or Hegseth were in this operation but it sounds like, minimally, everyone in the chain of command between Admiral Frank Bradley and whomever actually executed the strike is, at least, a war criminal.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
19hr ago
I've worked with probably a dozen or so Indian coworkers over the years and this does not describe any interaction I've ever had with them. I am also deeply skeptical that a kiwi farms post from a thread entitled "The India Menace - Street shitting, unsanitary practices, scams, Hindu extremism & other things" which cites no evidence is going to contain accurate generalizations about Indians.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
1d ago
I'm not sure how common it is but it's something of a running joke among Indian immigrants at my company. That you go from having servants who do all the cooking, cleaning, etc to the United States where you have to do all of that yourself, even if lots of other amenities are available that aren't in India. "Yea the air isn't smoggy all the time, but I have to clean my own toilet!"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
5d ago
I mean, maybe I'm the weird one but I don't think being hypothetically willing to do certain things is worth much compared to actually doing things. Would I kill a stranger to protect my wife? Sure. Do I think I will ever have to actually do that? Almost certainly not. Does that fact, like, oblige some gratitude or something on my wife's part? Create some responsibility to me? I don't think so. If it were a thing I actually had done, especially more than once, I would think differently but I don't think my hypothetical willingness generates much of an obligation on the part of others.
There's a CHH substack post that gets at a pretty similar theme (if anyone knows how to un-paywall substack articles let me know): You'll Kill Marauders, But Will You Change a Diaper?
The gist is that a lot of men seem to envision being a husband or father as entailing a lot of willingness to do violence and their contribution to these roles as being that willingness. This is, however, not a practical description of what is required to be a husband or father in a developed country. It's not to say that willingness is bad, but it is not something that is likely to be very useful.
But anyway, I think there are quite a few modern-day men who imagine fatherhood in all its glory, but are mostly imagining being a lord from Game of Thrones. In 2025, fatherhood means picking a kid up from school, buying a new backpack, and signing them up for swimming classes. I get that some men won’t do that, but even in the most trad households, fatherhood is remarkably light on the killing or even “protecting.” Yes, it’s good in theory for a man to be capable of protecting his family, but your average man will never be in a situation where he has to do that, whereas he will be in many situations where he has to attend his teenager’s terrible improv show or similar.
In fact, if your ultimate goal is keeping your children safe (and I think that’s a good goal) the most important dangers to avoid are things that fail to scratch the itch for grandiose violence. This includes things like carseat safety, pool safety, and social media. That’s not to say it’s useless to know how to take down a potential aggressor on the street (I’ve written before about the fact that unhinged stranger aggression in cities isn’t something to ignore) but in all likelihood, the biggest dangers to your children will be boring things: cars, pools, unsecured firearms, and mental illness leading to self-harm. No swords required!
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
6d ago
There was also some reporting by Punchbowl claiming other Republican members may resign as well. The House is currently 219-213 in favor of Republicans. With Democrats expected to win 2 upcoming special elections for currently empty seats and Republicans expected to win an upcoming special election for a currently filled seat. With those results and down MTG the House would stand at 218-215. Republicans would only be able to afford to lose one vote on any legislation and four resignations would give Democrats the majority.
I mean, the Post's reporting is that the order was to kill everybody. That doesn't sound like the killing of the two initial survivors was incidental. That may turn out to be wrong, of course, but if it's accurate I am pretty confident saying it's a war crime.
More options
Context Copy link