Violence is the loudest most universaly understood language there is, everyone speaks it and its message can be repeated until understood or no longer necissary.
@@MrJdmcd3 Ah yes but just having the bigger army is simply the threat of potential violence which can be equally persuasive but only if the enemy has a good idea of exactly what is going to happen to them.
@@heshiram1188 Based is a slang expression which conveys the meaning similar to "agreeable" and "worthy of support." ~ knowyourmeme.com In this context humans are agreeable to, and support the concept of deception in relation to warfare.
Imagine that our first contact war is with a civilization of honor-bound warriors who expect an honorable battle, but it turns out that we sent out robots to turn our entire asteroid belt into railguns and just completely annihilate them
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 I get what you're saying but every veteran I've ever talked to says there is no honor in war we are not an honor bound warrior race
It's also not a war crime if it's not a war crime. POWs are still lawful combatants. The only exceptions are Chaplains and Medics. The only requirement regarding the treatment of POWS is that they are not harmed or punished for participating in hostilities. They can be exploited in any other way the capturing nation cares to. This includes carrying them through a current combat operation. What you think we are going to stop fighting just to process and encamp someone on the spot?
Aliens: “We are the strongest warriors in the universe! We have laid waste to dozens of worlds! Left millions of dead in our wake! You puny humans do not stand a chance against us!” Human: *cocks shotgun* “Finally, we can test the effectiveness of the strategy’s we’ve been honing for the past 10,000 years.”
No, you don't want every war to be a war of annihilation. That's what wars without "rules" turn into. War is a LOT more "hell" of you don't comprehend why there are limits on what you can do in one. Because you WILL eventually run into someone more powerful than yourself. And there's nothing in the various Conventions that indicate they only apply to humans. Understand why such Conventions exist before spouting such nonesense.
Also there was no reports of Civilians on the ship. It was a battle ship with 4000 troops. Detonating an enemy power supply and killing them off cleanly isn't a crime it's a tactical decision. Now if it was in a city center full of civilians sure it might be. If they treated the prisoners poorly then yes as well. But for now they've captured, bound them had them ride in an armored vehicle and then left.
Never trust those who don't cook for themselves. At the best, you'll get food poisoning and indigestion.... At worst, it's poisoned, just by accident of the ingredients. Either way, cooking war, you must do it yourself... No Mobile Dolls. Edit, I think I misread your point... Cooking those who cannot cook for themselves, is a more interesting interpretation. 😜
They had clear information. 5 prisoners taken by the enemy. 5 enemy vehicles charging their defenses that are set to ignore the biology of said prisoners. They just didn't put realize the two were related.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 thing is, that feels like something really obvious that would only have NOT have ever come up before under some pretty contrived circumstances.
Considering we've been doing this amongst ourselves since tribes of more than just family units formed, I should hope we are better at this than they are.
Love your voice/accent. You sound like the clones from Star Wars when they don't have their helmets on! I'm basically picturing the human soldiers as the 501st.
Let me guess, American? NN is from England, the guy that played the clone troopers was from New Zealand. You missed the mark by an entire freaking planet.
To all the “warcrime” comments, how the fuk is overpowering your enemy with wit a warcrime? The geneva convent had mostly to do with how prisoners were treated and certain types of weapons (although nukes are not a part of that for some reason) and the bombing of hiroshima was a war crime because of the mass civilian casualties.
I'm not sure if Hiroshima was officially labeled a war crime, but something people will neglect to mention is that before they nuked Japan the U.S. military air dropped leaflets detailing how they planned to bomb the shit out of those cities, advising everyone to evacuate. Killing civilians wasn't the goal, it was a meant as a show of force.
@@bigbrainenergyguy it also saved more lives. The plans to capture japan’s mainland were expected to bring much more civilian and military casualties than the nuclear bombs ever did.
@@bigbrainenergyguy its also interesting to note that they said they were going to fire bomb them, as no one knew what a Nuke was. I will say the Nukes may not be war crimes depending on your own morality, but the firebombing defiantly were. It was the US's own Dresden except on the entire Japanese home island.
@@cheeseninja1115 Even if you looked at the wreckage left by firebombs vs the nukes you wouldn't know which was which. Ironically, the most significant difference was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned beforehand. The firebombs were just... dropped.
Okay I know it's fiction, but assuming that future infantry platoons would be based on modern NATO specs, there should only be three or four squads in a platoon.
Listen, if they weren't on earth when the Geneva convention was signed? Then it doesn't apply to them 💅 All I can think of are the words of one of our French-Canadian veterans recalling finding a flamethrower on D-Day : "Je les ai tous toasté"
No, they're called "Human Rights" because we thought up them, and, according us, we're the only sentient species (we know of). There's nothing in them, however, that are unique to humanity that easily wouldn't apply to any other sentient species.
@@tylerbrennon4023 for the exact same reason we should apply them to people in other countries. Human rights aren't in any way necessary to the survival of the human species. They're merely an artifact of advanced civilization, one that makes everyone's life nicer. The exact same principle applies to non human sentient species. Remember that the very concept of Human Rights didn't exist until maybe 250 years ago, and the idea that they might apply to all of Humanity is less than 75 years old. We should apply it to non Humans because they'll apply it to us. And make everyone's life better. Apply the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
I’m curious about why they let the two go… I can’t imagine why….. oh shit was it so they would run back, alert the rest, have the defenders leave to try and fight em to make their attack easier? No cause the original plan was to have only five
They called in an artillery strike on their position... It was so they'd go back, alert the rest who would then hopefully send forces to the "known enemy position", and then these forces would get shelled while the humans were gone.
And dolly is now a pet. No, not that kind! A literal pet with a sleeping pad on the floor and a food bowl. you would hardly know she is sentient unless told because she normally just stares with a defeated expression since the only time she vocalizes is when asked. Why would humans do this because we domestic all species why stop at just non-sentients? Besides what were we supposed to do with her she is an enemy combatant aligned with a faction we have no means to return her to so she is stuck here. Stop looking at me like that it's not like she would be treated right as a sentient most of our laws concerning rights have a must be a human qualifier it was either this or live as a wild animal. Still, confused? Look she has no right to equal pay or employment, no right to a fair trial, no right to own property, is effectively stateless in terms of recognized citizenship, and no right to freedom of speech to protest the lack of other rights. At least this way she has access to reliable food, water, housing, and medical care not that we abuse her far from it but it is hard for her not to be depressed considering her memories of who she once was and how far she has fallen on the societal ladder. Note this does not express my actual views it is just my head-canon of the final fate of dolly.
This is another "humanity is so cool, sumrt and good at war" stories where the humans win by committing warcrimes and its treated like brilliant strategy
It's only a warcrime if you loose the war. Otherwise nobody will be punished for doing it. *Looks at Dresden* As far as i know nobody from the allied forces especially their command faced court martial or any other court for committng said war crime. Firebommbing Dresden to oblivion had exactly 0 tactical and strategic value. No military targets suggested this should be done. Yet Allied forces did it anyway. And none of them had to answer for it. So much for the Geneva convention. Apparently according to the Geneva Convention we're not in Geneva.
@@vadfarkas14 the fact that it's only a war crime if you loss the war is a sad reality we should endeavour to change insted of accepting. Without adhering to our own rules we are no better then the murderes species we often see in these stories. Obviously our principles and rules change depending on the situation. If it was a fight for survival with no chance of surrender our rules are no longer that relevant. But from everything we've seen in this story humans have similar technology in comparison with these aliens and we outclass them in tactics.
@@stalwartteakettlepotato9879 the only reason the rules exist is to prevent self damage. If it works it works , it's why nuclear weapons are not illegal in isolation but stuff like nerve gas and biological weapons are. Conflict is sad,inevitable, profitable,etc,... depending on who you ask.
@@necrosteel5013 your going to be surprised in 2045 when the 100-year info ban ends and we all find out that's where the vampire infantry was being kept.
So in the midst of war and it's associated atrocity you stop to concern yourself with a light jab at the alphabet people? That's where you draw the line? Your sense of morality may be in need of adjustment.
Cool, we love ourselves some unnecessary stabs against polyamory, casual misogyny and implied homophobia! It's not like this story is otherwise interesting enough, no, we had to include that...
Cool, it's a fictional story that poses the soldiers as pieces of shit and doesn't make them heroes, in fact it shows them more as psychopathic. We get it, it's only wrong if it stabs at the groups PC culture covers, had a similar discussion like this and I posed this question to that person "would you be so offended if it attacked monogamy, straight people and men?" They danced around the question and made excuses. And i won't believe if you say "yes, I would" because I've pointed out that instance and made a point of being against dancing around that question. I've had several similar discussions and the tone changes whenever it's around the other side. Then again, I view polyamory as trash tier relations as I've seen it end in dumpsterfire after dumpsterfire with nothing but hurt or borderline abusive behaviors and the resulting children I have witnessed suffered from confusion, unneeded stress, anger issues, and tended to be bullied as they didn't have a strong parental figure as the roles were either weak or rotated between two individuals establishing a weak relationship with either two of a parental figure. Just what I've seen and witnessed in real life, and then the stories from online, dear fuck! Seriously however, you shouldn't care, because I doubt heavily you'd care the other way around. You can like it, I view it as nothing but a bomb with a timer, it's fast and explosive when it gets going, but it's rare for it not to end disgustingly.
@@stealthbrawler Are you the author of this story by any chance? It wasn't obvious from your comment, but I'll just assume it for now. Thank you so much for confirming my critique. I wasn't reading that into the story, you actually believe that stuff. And to answer your question: Actually "No, I would not be as offended if you had attacked monogamy or straight people, or men." I think perpetuating harmful stereotypes against systematically marginalized minorities is worse than insulting a random person that doesn't usually experience discrimination on a regular basis. The first is part of systematical oppression of an already vulnerable group, the other is just... being mean. Also, I am having trouble understanding your rant on polyamory. You can literally replace polyamory with monogamy, insert the word 'divorce' somewhere and the emotionally confused and unstable children that are rotated between two individuals (you said 'two' in your comment btw, is that a typo? I thought we are talking about families with more than two parents) still makes perfect sense. (Btw, almost 50% of all marriages in the US end in a divorce. I am wondering which lifestyle traumatized more children...) And since you started giving anecdotal evidence, I'll just add mine. The polyamorous relationships I have seen from friends and family were no more or less successful than their monogamous counterparts, and those that ended did so in a similar 'dumpsterfire' to monogamous break-ups I have seen. Also, while you are right that abuse can happen, it does so in both relationship styles, and I have made the experience that the open communication and constant negotiation that is inherently necessary to nurture a healthy polyamorous relationship results in a very transparent and honest environment (If done right, of course! If not, dumpsterfire, I guess). I don't think polyamory is better than monogamy, I think everybody has their own preference, and that's fine, but insulting another lifestyle, especially a marginalized one, is just not okay, and so unnecessary. At its core I don't relate to your extreme aversion of polyamory at all, and if your view of it was fed by bad experience I totally understand your initial mistrust, but please reevaluate if those examples represent the actual concept of polyamory fairly. (Because I don't think it does.)
Everyone bitching about human war crimes on an alien species and I'm here like
"Let's be xenophobic, its really in this year"
"Let's find a nasty slimy ugly alien to fear"
As I woke up this morning and went to work, I thought to myself.
"Time to commit war crimes against Non-humans."
@@burnerheinz “there’s no more cutesy stories about ET phoning home, let’s learn to love our neighbours like the christians learned in Rome”
@@ComedicLetter you know we ought to hate them, they're different, you see
@@GiskardRevenlov We've seen they're ugly on movies & TV.
Violence is the loudest most universaly understood language there is, everyone speaks it and its message can be repeated until understood or no longer necissary.
I like the way you think
Every problem in the world can be solved with the proper application of violence.
@@MichaelSmith-sp5qb There is not a problem on earth that cannot be solved with the High Velocity delivery of High Explosives
Bigger army diplomacy, oldest form of diplomacy.
@@MrJdmcd3 Ah yes but just having the bigger army is simply the threat of potential violence which can be equally persuasive but only if the enemy has a good idea of exactly what is going to happen to them.
Warfare *is* based on deception, and Humans can be really based.
All your based are belong to us!
Jane "Soldier" Doe: "War is hell, my kind of hell."
"All warfare is based"
-sun tzu
Based? Based on what
@@heshiram1188 Based is a slang expression which conveys the meaning similar to "agreeable" and "worthy of support." ~ knowyourmeme.com
In this context humans are agreeable to, and support the concept of deception in relation to warfare.
Imagine that our first contact war is with a civilization of honor-bound warriors who expect an honorable battle, but it turns out that we sent out robots to turn our entire asteroid belt into railguns and just completely annihilate them
The problem is humans have notions of honorable battle too (see Laws of Warfare). Problem is that our notions of honor aren't their notions of honor.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 that applies to humans so it's gas bat time
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 Its less about honor nowdays and more about preventing our own extinction.
Xenomeat Sausage will become an excellent product in the future.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 I get what you're saying but every veteran I've ever talked to says there is no honor in war we are not an honor bound warrior race
Remember kids it’s not a war crime if your committing them on aliens
Or if there is even anyone left to accuse you.
Theyre called human rights for a reason
@Stirgid Lanathiel im Not reading all of that
It's also not a war crime if it's not a war crime. POWs are still lawful combatants. The only exceptions are Chaplains and Medics. The only requirement regarding the treatment of POWS is that they are not harmed or punished for participating in hostilities. They can be exploited in any other way the capturing nation cares to. This includes carrying them through a current combat operation. What you think we are going to stop fighting just to process and encamp someone on the spot?
@Stirgid Lanathiel that has nothing to do with the Geneva convention
Aliens: “We are the strongest warriors in the universe! We have laid waste to dozens of worlds! Left millions of dead in our wake! You puny humans do not stand a chance against us!”
Human: *cocks shotgun* “Finally, we can test the effectiveness of the strategy’s we’ve been honing for the past 10,000 years.”
alternatively: humans"finally. some good fuckin food."
Alternatively Humans, " **Unholy monke noise.** "
Humans: you aren't from 'round here are you?
Rule 1 of combat, Don't fight us on our turf.
@@UnknownOps rule 2 of combat. Everywhere is our turf.
“All war is deception” -Sun Tzu
No, I believe the quote was "All warfare is based."
i thought it was "when your are strong apear weak, when you are weak apear strong"
It isn't a warcrime if the enemy isn't human.
War is hell, best to end it quickly, and the quick wars are usually the most violent.
All's fair in love and war.
@@ShiroNekoDen Thats what my Gunney says ^^
No, you don't want every war to be a war of annihilation. That's what wars without "rules" turn into. War is a LOT more "hell" of you don't comprehend why there are limits on what you can do in one.
Because you WILL eventually run into someone more powerful than yourself.
And there's nothing in the various Conventions that indicate they only apply to humans.
Understand why such Conventions exist before spouting such nonesense.
The Geneva Convetions, and other statues that establish war crimes, do not specify "humans". They generally refer to "persons".
Also there was no reports of Civilians on the ship. It was a battle ship with 4000 troops. Detonating an enemy power supply and killing them off cleanly isn't a crime it's a tactical decision. Now if it was in a city center full of civilians sure it might be. If they treated the prisoners poorly then yes as well. But for now they've captured, bound them had them ride in an armored vehicle and then left.
"War is a dish best served often. Preferebly to those who don't cook for themselves..."
Never trust those who don't cook for themselves. At the best, you'll get food poisoning and indigestion.... At worst, it's poisoned, just by accident of the ingredients.
Either way, cooking war, you must do it yourself... No Mobile Dolls.
Edit, I think I misread your point... Cooking those who cannot cook for themselves, is a more interesting interpretation. 😜
Asymetric strategic thinking in action. Or in laymans terms, tactical fuckery. ^^
Tex?
@@ettibbet5493 Yes ^^
@@LtCWest pay your bills to space at&t
pfffft tactical fuckery is goood
This is why you need safety overrides.
and clear information ahead of time.
They had clear information. 5 prisoners taken by the enemy. 5 enemy vehicles charging their defenses that are set to ignore the biology of said prisoners. They just didn't put realize the two were related.
@@noppornwongrassamee8941 thing is, that feels like something really obvious that would only have NOT have ever come up before under some pretty contrived circumstances.
The amount of war crimes in this one is stagering
the Geneva convention is only a suggestion, war crimes prepare to be commited
I dont recall xenos signing the Geneva convention
You... you monsters
marquez suffer not the xeno to live
@@gabrielmarquez9044 wer humans if they don’t sign the Geneva conversion then well there not protected
Considering we've been doing this amongst ourselves since tribes of more than just family units formed, I should hope we are better at this than they are.
By now, war is a family heirloom passed down the entire family tree
@@Sean_XT yup
I’m slightly over 4 minutes in and I swear I was cackling at the “more gay than bi” situation for no good reason.
It fits the military theme very well
Bird waifu acquired!
@@ShiroNekoDen angry bird waifu
Imperium of man intensifies
Blood for the blood God !
@@chrisb9143 Do I hear chaos? HERETIC
@@chrisb9143 skulls for the skull throne
@@chrisb9143 *BLAM!!!*
@@vbgvbg1133 *BLAM!!!* Begone heretics!!!
Love your voice/accent. You sound like the clones from Star Wars when they don't have their helmets on! I'm basically picturing the human soldiers as the 501st.
Morgan and Piers?
Piers Morgan has been deconstructed into two separate persons?
His alter-egos, dumb and dumber.
Plot twist: The queztali are oddly-colored humanoid sheep.
Hence: Dolly.
Wait a minute... I just realized this guy's voice sounds *exactly* like a Clone Trooper
Let me guess, American? NN is from England, the guy that played the clone troopers was from New Zealand. You missed the mark by an entire freaking planet.
I love how "The humans kept coming" :D
I love this shit. Great video.
To all the “warcrime” comments, how the fuk is overpowering your enemy with wit a warcrime? The geneva convent had mostly to do with how prisoners were treated and certain types of weapons (although nukes are not a part of that for some reason) and the bombing of hiroshima was a war crime because of the mass civilian casualties.
I'm not sure if Hiroshima was officially labeled a war crime, but something people will neglect to mention is that before they nuked Japan the U.S. military air dropped leaflets detailing how they planned to bomb the shit out of those cities, advising everyone to evacuate. Killing civilians wasn't the goal, it was a meant as a show of force.
@@bigbrainenergyguy it also saved more lives. The plans to capture japan’s mainland were expected to bring much more civilian and military casualties than the nuclear bombs ever did.
@@bigbrainenergyguy its also interesting to note that they said they were going to fire bomb them, as no one knew what a Nuke was. I will say the Nukes may not be war crimes depending on your own morality, but the firebombing defiantly were. It was the US's own Dresden except on the entire Japanese home island.
@@cheeseninja1115 Even if you looked at the wreckage left by firebombs vs the nukes you wouldn't know which was which. Ironically, the most significant difference was that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned beforehand. The firebombs were just... dropped.
Hiroshima isn't a war crime as the causus beli was against the entire people of Japan.
Okay I know it's fiction, but assuming that future infantry platoons would be based on modern NATO specs, there should only be three or four squads in a platoon.
The 5 squad companies were standard in WW2
@@scotteggert9820In Canada, a company is made of 3 platoons of 3 squads each (A squad being roughly 15 soldiers)
Listen, if they weren't on earth when the Geneva convention was signed? Then it doesn't apply to them 💅
All I can think of are the words of one of our French-Canadian veterans recalling finding a flamethrower on D-Day :
"Je les ai tous toasté"
Still the best part of my day
Ave Imperator, Gloria in excelsis Terra.
kinda feels like that last line should've been read as melancholy instead of sinister/aggressive.
thanks for another great installment bud!
Human rights are called 'Human' Rights for a reason. They don't apply to intergalactic alien species.
No, they're called "Human Rights" because we thought up them, and, according us, we're the only sentient species (we know of).
There's nothing in them, however, that are unique to humanity that easily wouldn't apply to any other sentient species.
@@eriktrimble8784 Why would we apply human rights to a species merely because they are sentient?
@@tylerbrennon4023 for the exact same reason we should apply them to people in other countries.
Human rights aren't in any way necessary to the survival of the human species. They're merely an artifact of advanced civilization, one that makes everyone's life nicer. The exact same principle applies to non human sentient species.
Remember that the very concept of Human Rights didn't exist until maybe 250 years ago, and the idea that they might apply to all of Humanity is less than 75 years old.
We should apply it to non Humans because they'll apply it to us. And make everyone's life better.
Apply the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
@Stirgid Lanathiel well, from how I see it, they didn’t commit any war crimes in this.
@@eriktrimble8784 Then for *their* sake I hope they like playing by our rules. Otherwise, what good are our rules?
Don't play by the rules of your enemy. The only fair fight is one you aren't ready for haha. War is chaos and he who is best at chaos owns the field.
It's only unfair if you loose...
Bye bye bois!
“Have fun storming the castle!”
*think it’ll work?*
*”It’d take a miracle”*
Bye bye!!
“Bye”
I’m curious about why they let the two go… I can’t imagine why….. oh shit was it so they would run back, alert the rest, have the defenders leave to try and fight em to make their attack easier? No cause the original plan was to have only five
They called in an artillery strike on their position... It was so they'd go back, alert the rest who would then hopefully send forces to the "known enemy position", and then these forces would get shelled while the humans were gone.
neat
Neato
@@lucaswoods1725 yea its a neat hfy right
Dollie: this is an atrocity! A war crime!.
Adam: sorry those Geneva shtick is only applicable to us humans
epilogue: Dollie ends up falling in love with her human and they have little half-breed babbies
***BLAM***
HERETIC!
@@highlordinquisitor4882 I will accept this judgement.
infatuating a member of a superior race would be the first smart thing they would do.
Does anybody know the background song? It seems familiar to me
th-cam.com/video/dQw4w9WgXcQ/w-d-xo.html
That one?
Ender the Xenocide. Card was writing this stuff in depth long before many of you were born. Check him out.
Larry Niven's Man-Kzinti Wars are also good.
Then their is Laumer's Bolos not exactly stories about humans fighting but machines created by humans.
@@jlokison I remember Niven. Haven't (re)read his stuff in a while but I will again. Thanks for the reminder.
Thank you for the reading
Tally: ~4043 dead, 5 captured, 1 pile of slag, 1 ruined marriage.
2 escapees.
Violence isn't the ANSWER, it's the question, and the answer is YES!
It's never a war crime the first time.
Didn't even need to put warheads on foreheads this time!
And dolly is now a pet. No, not that kind! A literal pet with a sleeping pad on the floor and a food bowl. you would hardly know she is sentient unless told because she normally just stares with a defeated expression since the only time she vocalizes is when asked. Why would humans do this because we domestic all species why stop at just non-sentients? Besides what were we supposed to do with her she is an enemy combatant aligned with a faction we have no means to return her to so she is stuck here. Stop looking at me like that it's not like she would be treated right as a sentient most of our laws concerning rights have a must be a human qualifier it was either this or live as a wild animal. Still, confused? Look she has no right to equal pay or employment, no right to a fair trial, no right to own property, is effectively stateless in terms of recognized citizenship, and no right to freedom of speech to protest the lack of other rights. At least this way she has access to reliable food, water, housing, and medical care not that we abuse her far from it but it is hard for her not to be depressed considering her memories of who she once was and how far she has fallen on the societal ladder.
Note this does not express my actual views it is just my head-canon of the final fate of dolly.
Basically the Toyota Wars in a nutshell.
Tactics
Guys, guys, it's not inhumane. They're not humans 🤣
Morgan, Pierce... lol! I saw what you did. :P
Moar
The Geneva conventions don't apply to people who haven't signed or agreed to abide by the Geneva conventions.
The Geneva convention becomes a suggestion when dealing with xenos
No even, when a xenos race wants to extinguish humanity, the Geneva convention will quickly hit the trash bin.
Not a war crime the first time
Yeahhh this story's not as enticing as some of the others, where the gag is human anatomy is different. This is just war crimes.
You mean being based?
@@c-boi1414 Calm down pepe
I see no war crime, I see humans exploiting flaws in their NON-HUMAN, and there for not protected by human rules of war aliens, technology.
@@kriegsmanjaeger5545 honestly, even the shitty powertrip writing ought to send the author to the Hague
@@feywildheart2878 -all warfare is based-
-sun tzu
REMEMBER KIDS ITS NOT A WAR CRIME THE FIRST TIME!!!
Oops...
For the Algorithm the story and the voice 🎉
kapitan bomba ahhh
This is another "humanity is so cool, sumrt and good at war" stories where the humans win by committing warcrimes and its treated like brilliant strategy
It's only a warcrime if you loose the war. Otherwise nobody will be punished for doing it. *Looks at Dresden* As far as i know nobody from the allied forces especially their command faced court martial or any other court for committng said war crime. Firebommbing Dresden to oblivion had exactly 0 tactical and strategic value. No military targets suggested this should be done. Yet Allied forces did it anyway. And none of them had to answer for it. So much for the Geneva convention. Apparently according to the Geneva Convention we're not in Geneva.
@@vadfarkas14 the fact that it's only a war crime if you loss the war is a sad reality we should endeavour to change insted of accepting. Without adhering to our own rules we are no better then the murderes species we often see in these stories. Obviously our principles and rules change depending on the situation. If it was a fight for survival with no chance of surrender our rules are no longer that relevant. But from everything we've seen in this story humans have similar technology in comparison with these aliens and we outclass them in tactics.
@@stalwartteakettlepotato9879 the only reason the rules exist is to prevent self damage. If it works it works , it's why nuclear weapons are not illegal in isolation but stuff like nerve gas and biological weapons are. Conflict is sad,inevitable, profitable,etc,... depending on who you ask.
@@necrosteel5013 your going to be surprised in 2045 when the 100-year info ban ends and we all find out that's where the vampire infantry was being kept.
Human rights only apply to Humans... it's literally right in the name...
finally, i have been saying these stories needed more gay
Meanwhile in the military now: gets e.o.ed for making a joke about someones gender.*
Algorithm
1
Yeah this one isn’t it lol
Would have been a better story without the random lgbtqia phobic part
So in the midst of war and it's associated atrocity you stop to concern yourself with a light jab at the alphabet people? That's where you draw the line? Your sense of morality may be in need of adjustment.
What if I told you, that I don't fucking care about that when it directly frames government officials as scumbags as well? Get over yourself
@@Snipergoat1 it’s writing not an actual war lmao what
Cool, we love ourselves some unnecessary stabs against polyamory, casual misogyny and implied homophobia! It's not like this story is otherwise interesting enough, no, we had to include that...
Cool, it's a fictional story that poses the soldiers as pieces of shit and doesn't make them heroes, in fact it shows them more as psychopathic.
We get it, it's only wrong if it stabs at the groups PC culture covers, had a similar discussion like this and I posed this question to that person "would you be so offended if it attacked monogamy, straight people and men?" They danced around the question and made excuses.
And i won't believe if you say "yes, I would" because I've pointed out that instance and made a point of being against dancing around that question.
I've had several similar discussions and the tone changes whenever it's around the other side.
Then again, I view polyamory as trash tier relations as I've seen it end in dumpsterfire after dumpsterfire with nothing but hurt or borderline abusive behaviors and the resulting children I have witnessed suffered from confusion, unneeded stress, anger issues, and tended to be bullied as they didn't have a strong parental figure as the roles were either weak or rotated between two individuals establishing a weak relationship with either two of a parental figure.
Just what I've seen and witnessed in real life, and then the stories from online, dear fuck!
Seriously however, you shouldn't care, because I doubt heavily you'd care the other way around.
You can like it, I view it as nothing but a bomb with a timer, it's fast and explosive when it gets going, but it's rare for it not to end disgustingly.
@@stealthbrawler Are you the author of this story by any chance? It wasn't obvious from your comment, but I'll just assume it for now.
Thank you so much for confirming my critique. I wasn't reading that into the story, you actually believe that stuff. And to answer your question: Actually "No, I would not be as offended if you had attacked monogamy or straight people, or men." I think perpetuating harmful stereotypes against systematically marginalized minorities is worse than insulting a random person that doesn't usually experience discrimination on a regular basis. The first is part of systematical oppression of an already vulnerable group, the other is just... being mean.
Also, I am having trouble understanding your rant on polyamory. You can literally replace polyamory with monogamy, insert the word 'divorce' somewhere and the emotionally confused and unstable children that are rotated between two individuals (you said 'two' in your comment btw, is that a typo? I thought we are talking about families with more than two parents) still makes perfect sense. (Btw, almost 50% of all marriages in the US end in a divorce. I am wondering which lifestyle traumatized more children...)
And since you started giving anecdotal evidence, I'll just add mine. The polyamorous relationships I have seen from friends and family were no more or less successful than their monogamous counterparts, and those that ended did so in a similar 'dumpsterfire' to monogamous break-ups I have seen. Also, while you are right that abuse can happen, it does so in both relationship styles, and I have made the experience that the open communication and constant negotiation that is inherently necessary to nurture a healthy polyamorous relationship results in a very transparent and honest environment (If done right, of course! If not, dumpsterfire, I guess). I don't think polyamory is better than monogamy, I think everybody has their own preference, and that's fine, but insulting another lifestyle, especially a marginalized one, is just not okay, and so unnecessary.
At its core I don't relate to your extreme aversion of polyamory at all, and if your view of it was fed by bad experience I totally understand your initial mistrust, but please reevaluate if those examples represent the actual concept of polyamory fairly. (Because I don't think it does.)
It's only unfair if you loose...