...to ask why nobody is talking about the 32 people killed in the raid on Venezuela?

[QwertyAtThirty]

32 people (largely forming Maduro's security team) were killed when the US attacked Venezuela.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj9r0eyw0jno
Why isnt that part of the discussion about whether the US's actions were justified / were an act of warfare / violated international law? Apart from reports such as the one linked above, it's not mentioned in any of the commentary I've seen or heard about the legality of the event. Is it because they died protecting Maduro and are therefore considered the "bad guys" and accepted by the international community as collateral damage in a way they wouldn't be if they were civilians?

I suppose my AIBU is: AIBU to think the fact that lives were lost warrants a place in the discussion?
YABU = they're not worth mentioning
YANBU = their deaths should form part of the conversation

The discussion where?

I broadly think people in the UK don’t care about this beyond ‘WTF is Trump doing, the lunatic’

Of course loss of life should be considered

Were they killed defending themselves ? Or were they just assassinated in cold blood ?

Of course it's terrible, but I doubt if Trump, or most yanks, give a fuck about it.

I agree. I think the whole thing is shocking anyway, but there’s a big difference between US military abduct a head of state without harming anyone and US military kill 32 people to abduct that head of state.

It was inevitable with any hostile action that some people would die - it's their job to be between their employer/leader and an attacking force, the same way that any other leader's protection detail is.

That's the number of Cubans that died, according to Cuban sources.
Venezuela don't appear to have released any figures on the number of dead. It's hard to believe there were none.

Anywhere. I listened to LBC for an hour this morning and this afternoon on my commute and it wasn't mentioned, even though this story dominated the discussion. Equally none of the opinion or analysis pieces I've read on the BBC, Guardian, or the NYTimes has mentioned it. People are picking over all the different facets of the story - the oil, the drugs, what does it mean for Denmark, did it breach international law or not, do the ends (removal of a dictator) justify the means (illegal invasion) - but nobody's talking about this element.

No one cares about swarthy foreigners murdered.

Just kissing American arse, it seems.

I've heard about the 32 Cubans several times on radio, and I am generally a news avoider. So basically... they are being talked about. Quite a bit.

Excuse to target Cuba next?

I haven't seen the exact circumstances of their deaths reported anywhere. They're just described as "part of Maduro's security detail" so I assume they died trying to protect him.

It was the first thing I wondered when I heard about the attack, and I agree, it seems to be being shamefully overlooked. Even if noone was killed you'd think it would be mentioned, but if as seems pretty likely people did die, it is basically murder isn't it?

Yes, I was surprised by this too. Trump boasted over and over again on Saturday morning about how no US personnel died in the attack but there's been not a word about whether any Venezualans did. I too struggle to believe that none did.

A non issue considering the benefit to the public.

Because to a large extent it doesn't really matter. Trump has acted so far beyond the law in what he did that the details are irrelevant. It's like discussing whether an arsonist jaywalked when going to start his fire. It's the end result that is so shocking.

Why is no-one/mainstream media talking about the massive protests in Iran for the past nine days and all the protestors who've been murdered by the regime in that time?

If the Cubans on the protection detail (that's the rumour) were armed, could legitimately described as combatants and were the first to offer lethal force then it'll all boil down what Rules of Engagement the US Forces were operating under and whether those were lawful in the circumstances.

TBH given everything else that's gone on whilst this might be up for debate here ultimately the reality is the US aren't going to be handing service personnel over to the ICC.

What’s the public benefit? Honestly I really don’t know much about this at all except America is not Venezuela and that makes me think not their circus, not their monkeys.

I agree, sounds like murder to me.

British Government have been responsible for many, many more than that in Iraq etc.

They mentioned it on C4 news this evening. They spoke to a number of people and I thought picked apart the issue well. Fucking terrifying really. I do think being security for a dictator will always carry some risks.

We’re only 11 months into the administration. I think I can only really think about it for so long. I’m glad I’m in the UK and I’m glad I’m not Starmer, if he condemns it he risks the UK economy (although our trade deals seem built on sand with America anyway) if he doesn’t, he risks his and our reputation? Are we now appeasing America? All eyes on Greenland.

I haven’t paid much attention to the story, so I hadn’t heard that people died. Of course their lives matter.

What reputation?

The UK has not covered itself in glory with any of its support for America's illegal wars dating back to Yugoslavia and earlier. Iraq? Afghanistan? Starmer fucking about in safety in Ukraine, dressed in combat fatigues?

Do you think we are feared and admired by anyone?

Not at all, I think they’ve consistently screwed us over and we seem to have little choice but to go along. But this is something different, they aren’t even pretending to be operating on international law. I’m not sure this will pan out as he expects, I can understand Starmer watching and waiting, but I’d like him at some point to speak up. Reality is that at the moment we are very reliant on US military in Europe. I imagine all of western Europe will be increasing military spending, but that takes time.

Yep. Though history has shown again and again what a fat lot of good it does cosying up to and depending on America. Remember Prince Sirik Matak in Cambodia? His dying words were something like, "The only mistake I have made was believing in you, the Americans" shortly before he was executed by the Khmer Rouge. That was just over 50 years ago now.

The murderous airstrikes against civilian boats that America boasted about in September, including going back to bomb two survivors clinging to the wreckage? There is no scenario under which this is neither murder nor a war crime. Trump was testing the waters- would anyone have the guts to hold them to account for this? No one did.