this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
308 points (97.0% liked)
Shitty Food Porn
3196 readers
10 users here now
This community is for shitty pictures of food and pictures of shitty food.
For pictures of good food, check out !foodporn@lemmy.world
Related Communities
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
Enough of them did, and even more have joined-up recently-enough to know exactly who they would be taking orders from. Your argument doesn't hold water.
Americans are bombing the shit out of civilian infrastructure in Iran, based on not liking the actions of an unelected oppressive authoritarian regime. Americans and Israeli's at the moment are pretty much indiscriminate when it comes to who they're killing.
And online, you and many other American supporters whine saying "Not all of us are like that!". No one fucking cares that a minority of your country are sending thoughts and prayers, while your country is bombing civilians and openly, flagrantly, committing war crimes -- LAUGHING about committing those war crimes at your state of the union even. "haha, we destroyed Venezuela's fishing industry by illegally murdering a bunch of innocent fishermen! LOL!". Many of us care even less about how the people complicit in CARRYING OUT those war crimes are being treated by the US government.
"We went to Iran to kill civilians, and they're not feeding us well!". Boo fucking hoo.
And online, you and many other American supporters whine saying "Not all of us are like that!".
I am American, I am not an 'American Supporter'.
I agree the 'not all of us are like that' argument is bad.
Im fact I hate that the country is doing what it is doing and has been for so long. It sucks, its embarrassing.
What I am I really saying is that responsibility for the acts of violence, is often attributed to the 'wrong' people. And so I was seeking some clarification.
I would agree with a Dutchman or an Iranian saying 'America and all of its citizens are responsible for the violence, and it is bad'. I can accept this is a fairly true snd congruent statement.
I would not agree with an American saying that an unspecified group of people (individuals)onboard a ship are responsible for the violence whilst they share no responsibility in it, are morally superior and clean.
'CARRYING OUT' also would require some explaining.
If were to host Nuremberg 2.0 for America. 'CARRYING OUT' could mean lots of things.
The fact is that the causality of our acts of violence are distributed---and if we begin to assign levels of complictness to individuals and groups we ought to do so carefully. Voting, for example, is not the only way one can be complicit (or increase their complictness). Agency is a real factor.
Just as an aside, I read this essay from a Russian the other day, especially, "not all Russians are responsible but all are complicit"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/09/i-had-poked-the-bear-right-in-the-eye-my-fight-to-renounce-my-russian-citizenship
Ill give it a read.
I just think that (1) its mentally easy to quickly assign blame on others, (2) it is not necessarily accurate when one does not specify whom (which person(s) (3) or aligned with the current international legal standards for crimes or violations. It might be unreasonable to expect 'everyone' to hold the same values as high level policy makers, but it is a point to be made.
But the statement that all are complicit but not responsible is a modern accurate statement in my viewpoint.
All Americans that pay taxes are complicit. Unless they have made every reasonable attempt to leave the country. (Myself included).
There are varying levels of responsibility and accompanying guilt- but this is sort of a slippery slope to think like this but it is true.
An international trial would not convict all Americans of a crime and then sentence them. The trial would convict 'natural persons' whom made the decisions, and also 'natural persons' whom performed aggression such as a drone operator, possibly aviators, (but only true in Nuremberg to a limited extent ) but there are thousands aboard the ship whom are indeed complicit but
I would not sentence them to death, writ large, or else. At the most a fine or some injunctions regarding federal or military employment and or voting.
The wars in Sudan--- The war in Ukraine-- I feel bad for all of them, I know many Russians are forced to die at the hands of the state. To much lesser degree some Americans are forced to facilitate war thru less bold or violent mechanisms.
Undoubtedly the Iranians noninvolved are suffering orders of magnitude greater than the 'boys' ln ship. But comparing suffering is not helpful on the individual level. The system level, it is certainly.
Even though some I feel bad for may be responsible or complicit in the violence.
No man, your country voted for him and 30% didn't give enough of a shit to vote either way, that's complicity and frankly I don't think om going to be going out of my way to associate with them over this.
To the ineffective libs still in America, you wanna actually hurt Donald. Move to a dif country.
Incorrect My argument was asking for more information and the commenter has yet to make reply.
Iv not replyed because your not worth replying to, everyone else here understands what I'm saying but you, sounds like a you problem. Enough voted on it and now they're stuck with that they've got wanted, now it's time to own it. Don't like it then I suggest you don't reup jarhead.
Popular agreement does not equate to correctness.
You did reply. 'Not worth replying to' - parroting the others, riding the popularity...
'Jarhead' is a word-it does not apply to me. Using inciteful words you do not understand or rather do not understand the intended target (me) whom you've not taken one ounce of effort to understand
While
Making a simple, short, low effort claim, I see this and I want more information to understand your positions more clearly.
You, on the other hand, could not care less about what my position is even though I am in a place to understand this issue on a more intimate level...
Group X v Group Y The less those two groups attempt to understand eachother the more likely chaos, division, hatred, and or violence is to occur.
See this is why i didn't respond to you initially, your just doing that stupid redditer pseudo intellectual rutine, trying to use logic on a offhand observation that wasn't anything more then a jab at the American military complex. I insult them because they're a v. clearly an imperialist body and if your too dumb to realize that then Im not going to waste my breath on you, america has been made fun of for being oil hungry meddlers for decades.
you stupidly singled stuff out like 'solider boys' as if it was a gotcha. as Machinefab812 pointed that out, many voted for them just shy of 50% and now this is what they have to look forward to, you going 'who, what, way' like a child will get you about as far as a child and i really don't think i need to add any more to this convo cuz its a waste of time.
'Trying to use logic' Thinking
Could have said that from the beginning. Im not attacking anyone or being a child because I am in fact an adult. When someone asks for clarification typically there is a response-this is how communication generally happens between adults.
Like this 'What did you mean by that?' ' I meant this.' 'OK. Because I thought you meant this, great.'
So no, I do not see why you delayed a response because it could have been far less dialogue had you said 'its not that deep bro, I just dislike this thing happening and I didn't think too muchh about what I typed'
Again with the popularity thing?
'Soldier boy' singled out because you used the term incorrectly showing a lack of understanding (thats OK Im here to help-- I do understand, you just have to set aside some ego)
'Jarhead' singled out because it was used incorrectly showing a lack of understanding again.
No, you do not need to do anything. I can see you lack the positive spirit of truth seeking, accountability and international cooperation and I cannot help that.
No specific commenter is obligated to reply to your non-sense or do your research for you. "Enough of them did" was more info than your "request" merritts.
Asking to put up or shut up is a fair request. They aren't obligated to respond to that request, but it's equally fair to then assume their statement is rectally sourced.
Imagine doing fuck-all to prove me wrong, not even bothering to make a counter-claim, then referring to my, TRUE, statement as "rectally sourced".
Maybe I didn't have to look it up immediately before commenting, because I've looked it up many, many, times before when bothering such obligatory things as "you are wrong, and this is why."
See what I did there?
Good job doubling-down on a double-down. I'll go up and add that link to my earlier comment, so no one need dig down here to see your laziness and shame, which to spell it out again: you made zero claims(beyond "rectally sourced", yawnwithatootforya*), and provided nothing in the way of substantiating your ignorant bullshit.