this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2025
39 points (97.6% liked)

News

38763 readers
1939 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Footage seen by US senators shows two unarmed, shirtless men struggling to stay afloat before they were killed, sources say

Two men who survived a US airstrike on a suspected drug smuggling boat in the Caribbean clung to the wreckage for an hour before they were killed in a second attack, according a video of the episode shown to senators in Washington.

The men were shirtless, unarmed and carried no visible radio or other communications equipment. They also appeared to have no idea what had just hit them, or that the US military was weighing whether to finish them off, two sources familiar with the recording told Reuters.

The pair desperately tried to turn a severed section of the hull upright before they died. “The video follows them for about an hour as they tried to flip the boat back over. They couldn’t do it,” one source said.

The video of the attack on 2 September was seen by senators behind closed doors on Thursday amid growing concern that the US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and other officials who ordered the attack may have committed a war crime.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Huh, I hadn't thought of that implication but I see what you mean. I guess it's always been kind of misleading though, because it's not about the delay between strikes, it's about shooting a target that's already been neutralized to try to kill survivors.

Seems like the specific phrase might have orginated from a 2003 order the army gave to troops in Iraq (arc), which would explain the minimizing language (while we're on the subject - blowing someone up with a missile isn't exactly a "tap," either), but then groups like Amnesty International ran with it to talk about how the Bush and Obama and Trump administrations would all drone strike targets a second time to kill medical responders.

[–] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Yeah, as far as I know, the real origin of the term is for shooting targets (or people), so you are literally double tapping the trigger. That way, if the first round doesn't hit (or doesn't kill), the second will.

The uncertainty piece is key, though. If they fired a missile and werent sure if it hit by the time they launched the second, they could accurately call that a double-tap. That's what hegseth seems to be trying to push, especially with his reference to "fog of war".

The moment you know the first shot destroyed the target, it ceases to be a double-tap.

I just don't like how they are trying to absolve themselves through language they know will be misinterpreted, and then the media just parrots it with no issue.

P.s., to be clear, whether it is a double tap doesn't change much to me because the first missile was already a war crime.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Not killing just survivors, a double tap is about killing the people who try to rescue the wounded. It is using the wounded as a trap to lure out anyone willing to help them and kill them too.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

EDIT: There's a source for this - I am incorrect. Potentially a homonym situation.

Original: I would like a source on that.

To be crass, you double tap an enemy who is wounded as you're advancing past them so you don't need to waste time or resources securing or treating them.

If you're far enough away that they're wounded and their buddy is rushing over, well, they should've done the first rule of care under fire - return fire. Not my fault if they forgot to call time out. That's not a double tap.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago (1 children)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_tap_strike

You seem to be confusing a war crime with a paintball match.

[–] BigPotato@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

Well, you have a source and I'm clearly in the wrong here. I have heard double tap used in infantry tactics, unfortunately not for paintball though I have played. Shooting an already out player is a no-no in paintball too. But, potentially the usage in infantry tactics was a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters on the legality of the, even from that snippet, much more reprehensible 'double tap strike.'

I'll keep this information in mind, specifically in this case.