There are lots of ways to describe the boat bombings. One thing is for sure: We cannot be plausibly accused of soft-pedaling our characterizations of them when one of the two videos about them is headlined: "Trump’s *Murderous* Rampage Against Alleged Venezuelan Narco-Smugglers." We agree that they are "lawless killings" and say so in the post.
Good grief. Why presume a "lie" here rather than a difference of opinion? There are people of good faith who disagree about whether Trump's airstrikes constitute a war crime or whether they should be seen as something else entirely. In your initial reply, you suggested that they can't be construed as war crimes because Congress has not declared war. This is a misunderstanding. An action can be a war crime even if no formal declaration of war has been given. On this understanding, all that is needed is for there to be an armed conflict. Of course, others suggest that, because in this case there was neither a declaration of war nor an armed conflict, this should be classified as a violation of human rights, or something along those lines. That's fine. The point is that it's not as cut and dry as you've suggested. But much of this is moot anyway, since our post did not definitively insist on the airstrikes being seen as "war crimes." What we said was that they are veering into war crime territory—which can be read as saying they're *on the level of* war crimes. In any event, it's mystifying why this is such a sticking point for you since we're obviously not downplaying the severity of what Trump has done. We call it murder, we describe it as lawless killing, etc. Maybe save the outrage for people who whitewash Trump's actions rather than publications like ours who consistently hold his feet to the fire?
How is it possible that an action can be considered a "war crime" when there is no war?
I know that language has become a free-for-all, with this administration in particular deciding to use words to mean anything they want, but I don't want them to be my role models.
The boat bombings ARE NOT WAR CRIMES. Stop calling them "war crimes"!
The US is not at war with Venezuela and ONLY CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR.
They are outright murder.
There are lots of ways to describe the boat bombings. One thing is for sure: We cannot be plausibly accused of soft-pedaling our characterizations of them when one of the two videos about them is headlined: "Trump’s *Murderous* Rampage Against Alleged Venezuelan Narco-Smugglers." We agree that they are "lawless killings" and say so in the post.
If there are "lots of ways" to describe the boat bombings, then stop using the one that is a lie.
Apparently you have lots of other ways to talk about them.
Good grief. Why presume a "lie" here rather than a difference of opinion? There are people of good faith who disagree about whether Trump's airstrikes constitute a war crime or whether they should be seen as something else entirely. In your initial reply, you suggested that they can't be construed as war crimes because Congress has not declared war. This is a misunderstanding. An action can be a war crime even if no formal declaration of war has been given. On this understanding, all that is needed is for there to be an armed conflict. Of course, others suggest that, because in this case there was neither a declaration of war nor an armed conflict, this should be classified as a violation of human rights, or something along those lines. That's fine. The point is that it's not as cut and dry as you've suggested. But much of this is moot anyway, since our post did not definitively insist on the airstrikes being seen as "war crimes." What we said was that they are veering into war crime territory—which can be read as saying they're *on the level of* war crimes. In any event, it's mystifying why this is such a sticking point for you since we're obviously not downplaying the severity of what Trump has done. We call it murder, we describe it as lawless killing, etc. Maybe save the outrage for people who whitewash Trump's actions rather than publications like ours who consistently hold his feet to the fire?
How is it possible that an action can be considered a "war crime" when there is no war?
I know that language has become a free-for-all, with this administration in particular deciding to use words to mean anything they want, but I don't want them to be my role models.