There has never been a ruling by the UN, ICC, ICJ or whatever about the use of agent orange breaching the Geneva conventions or being a war crime. All legal analysis is post hoc. Today it might be, but it's irrelevant to this foreign agitators ridiculous claims.

You assert they knew based on nothing but a hope and a dream. Chemical warnings are designed to prevent misuse, and I would love to hear you claim the warnings on the box were "will cause generational harm". In fact it's the exact opposite because soldiers were incredibly ignorant of the toxicity of the chemical, a fact veteran advocacy groups have spoken of at length.

They also stopped using agent orange shortly after more information came out about those kinds of harmful effects in 1969, which goes against your claim.

If you think any of this is convincing of the claim "America and ISIS are the same" you've got your head in the sand.

This was only a cover story however.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Dude, this happened in living memory. Americans are completely open about it.

Operation Ranch Hand had two primary objectives: (1) defoliation of trees and plants to improve visibility for military operations, and (2) destruction of essential enemy food supplies. Source

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime. Source

It's all a bit moot, since the USA gives zero shits about the UN, ICC and when they can hide it, the Geneva Convention. Hell, the ICC list of War Crimes is like a runsheet of what the Americans got up to in Vietnam. And we haven't even discussed Napalm.

Have they improved? Yeah, probably. But then you watch the Collateral Murder video, and question that.

I haven't equated the Americans with ISIS. But I can understand why an Iraqi would and would give their position serious consideration.

[–] tankiesmasher@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago

improve visibility for military operations

destruction of essential enemy food supplies.

Attacking civilian food sources is a war crime.

See the problem? And even if I concede all of this, it doesn't get someone closer to the original claims being made, it's just a whataboutism based on a lazy bastardization of the word terrorism.

I don't recall him saying he was an Iraqi, I just know he's a lying campist shill dirtying up the discourse with slopulist slogans and conspiratorial brainrot like they all do. Whether American interventionism is good or not isn't at issue here, it's about whether it's terrorism.

Whatever circumstance of his upbringing have led him to these asinine positions aren't important, I just know that these talking points are destructive nonsense and inevitably function to sweep for actual terrorists who target civilians openly and explicitly like ISIS.