It’s in the same category as the Highway of Death, where it’s not technically a war crime, but it’s close enough to one that you get the feeling that it should be.
It’s a moot point anyway, as even if the girls school bombing and any other reported attacks on civilian targets were completely accidental and unintentional, the following two crimes would still have been committed by the Amero-Israeli politicians and brass:
- Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
- Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
Rudolph Hess was found guilty of the above two crimes (but not to war crimes or crimes against humanity) at Nuremberg and sentenced to life in prison. War crimes and crimes against humanity are very provable against a lot of the Israeli brass and political elite, as well as the American political elite, and those crimes were often met with a sentence of execution.
It’s very unlikely that we’ll get a Nuremburg out of this whole thing, but the legal precedent is quite clear.
Oh this is definitely a war crime. It was murder, they were not even at war with us. We found a helpless ship and sunk it for fun killing the majority of the sailors. Absolutely disgusting.
It’s always a bit of a fuzzy line when it comes to submarine warfare, especially in modern times. A submarine on the surface is so vulnerable that in most military contexts, it would be suicidal to surface in a combat zone. At the same time, a military ship is a completely legitimate target, even if it’s defenceless. However, this wasn’t exactly a “combat zone”, since it was a ship with no escorts known to be defenceless, and very far from any friendly forces capable of assisting it or attacking the submarine.
The rules and customs of war at sea definitively state that you have to offer aid to the crew of a ship you sink. They didn’t do that, they just left them for dead. You could argue that a submarine doesn’t have the capability to render aid, given the aforementioned necessity of staying submerged, but there was another option. They could have stayed at periscope depth (they were already at periscope depth in order to film the heckin epic sinking of a defenceless ship), radioed them with an order to stop and informed them that they had 10 minutes to abandon ship before they were sunk, and then torpedoed them. This would have satisfied the rules and customs of war, and still have gotten them their torpedo video, while not endangering the sub (especially since Iran had no way to hit it back).
In short, I’ve definitely come around to the position that this was a war crime, but I would argue that it is only so because they either didn’t render aid when they could have, or because they didn’t give warning (given that they would argue that they couldn’t render aid) when they could have. Don’t take explanation of the nuance of the situation as sympathy fot the americans, if there was a button that would kill every american service member i would press it without hesitation.
So we blew up a ship because it belonged to the wrong country and not because it was a threat?
It sure sounds like our country is at war with their country. Good thing my super trustworthy government got out ahead of that one and told us it’s not a war.
Not only that, but it sure looked like they waited for them to muster at a known time and then hit that section of the ship.
no, you see… they are at war with us but we are just pre-empting their threats. Like… have you seen the way these people stared at us? They clearly hated us for some reason. And you know how dangerous people are when they are that full of hatred
Iran doesn’t like Israel so it was a pre-preemptive strike on behalf of our dearest ally.
The US desperately needs to change the regime, because otherwise they know the same will happen to their oil tankers eventually.
The americans knew the ship was coming for a military exercise without ammunition, they couldn’t just seize it and captured everyone and got the ship? I’m missing something?
Maximum lethality, not tepid legality.
That’s not what bullies and war criminals usually do mate.
Because the sailors would just hand over one of their most advanced warships.
They would have scuttled it, so the result would have been the same, but without the killing.
Terrorists want blood.
They could’ve done that with Venezuela’s “drug boats” too but didn’t. That’s because the goal was actually to kill people.
If they did that they would have a lot more paperwork to forge. The U.S. was claiming that they were running cocaine, but there were reports after one of the bombings that a lot of weed washed up on shore. With a large part of the U.S. population believing weed shouldn’t be illegal, and clearly making it legal would take away any reason for someone to smuggle weed into our country selling the idea of attacking their country for it would have been harder. So they would have had to dispose of all the weed, bag up fake cocaine or acquire real cocaine and submit it all to evidence and fake all the paperwork.
Instead they just bomb them and don’t have to lie anymore, the evidence was supposed to gone and they could tell the media whatver story they wanted.
That’s because the goal was actually to kill brown people.
You assume they wanted the ship or prisoners more than the death and suffering
Same as where Hitler govt. could have set the claimed non-citizens to do some kind of menial labour but instead they decided to expend resources into stuffing them into smoke boxes for long periods.
There seems to be someone craving the same thing over here and I find it hard to understand why that somebody craves that so much.
First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.
Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.
EDIT: According to the Indian ministry of defense, the ship was taking part in live fire component of the naval exercise. So they did bring ammo to the exercise. Unless they brought exactly the ammo they spent on the excersise, they had ammo.
Removed by mod
Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldn’t be any risk of “getting beaten with a pipe” because the Iranian vessel surrendered.
DeeperDumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldn’t make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, they’re clearly ruining your ability to reason
Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.
In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?
Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
who were not at war
And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?
Normally I wouldn’t care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.
I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and it’s pedophile president, this really isn’t one of them.
brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups
Heheh.
“theocratic dictator” -> “democratic party” idk maybe sth else
“supporting” -> “creating, funding and nationalising”The rest are pretty much common.
The parts that matter are common.What do we do? Doesn’t matter who wins, we all lose.
What’s your point? Even if you were right that both sides were evil, should it somehow make me sad they are killing each other?
they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed.
The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.
Is Russia also not at war in your mind
This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants. Moreover, there’s a bit of a difference: Russia illegally attacked Ukraine, while on the other hand Iran was illegally attacked.
brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region.
Sure I do agree. I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people. It does not seem to me that people in Libya are much better off after Gaddafi was murdered, same goes with Afghanistan and Kosovo.
The Geneva convention is something I appreciate, war crimes is not something I appreciate.
There is nothing in the Geneva convention that says a combatant has to have ammo or a gun to be a combatant.
This is a fallacy: Iran is at war, but that does not mean all Iranians are active combatants.
There is no fallacy, because I am not arguing about them being combatants in my last comment. I am debunking a straight up lie that they are not at war. But sure, not everyone is a combatant. Military personel on a warship are.
I’m not sure bombing the country is a good way to help those people.
Who is saying it is? There is a world of middle ground between something being a good idea and a war crime. I am just saying the people being bombed are hardly innocent bystanders.
One aspect of this is not that anyone is interested in some “war declaration ritual” but that it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.
That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.
Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.
That said, legally speaking it is true that the laws of armed conflict still apply once hostilities have began and the legality of the war itself is a separate question from whether the attack is. Under those laws an enemy warship is a legitimate target whether it has ammunition or not.
Exactly.
Obviously laws are not morals and you could still take issue on moral grounds with an action that is legal though.
I think you mean ethical? On moral grounds, you can take issue with anything, including a woman not wearing a Hijab or speaking in public. Since morals are subjective. It is just unethical to impose such morals on others.
And yes, laws are generally often misaligned with what is ethical, though I am not convinced they are in this particular case.
it is an illegal war that lacks justification under international law.
I guess, technically yes? Although that is true for pretty much any war, even arguably just ones. Regardless, that is not relevant to the topic as you pointed out.
I’m curious, what excuses will you make for the nazis when they’re dragging you out of your house ?
it will be" your suppose to be hurting them , not me"
You think they live on a warship?
I have that very album in my CD shelf 5 meters from me - when I bought it I just thought it was a cool Star Wars reference - I didn’t know what quality music I was getting :)
… Add yet another warcrime to the list…
Why do you think it’s a war crime?
… Because they were in international waters, not engaged in any combat activity, unarmed, and also the US hadn’t, and still hasn’t, actually declared war against them.
And we, the US, made no effort to help the survivors, which is actually required by international law.
I don’t think these make this a war crime but I’m not an expert, can you show me an article describing or explaining it as such. Like I’m not interested in whether it was right or moral (it wasn’t) but as far as I can tell it wasn’t a war crime.
Ok.
You’re wrong, by the way.
And no, you don’t need an article, wikipedia should suffice.
If you gave even half of a shit about this, and possess a brain that can write a high school book report, you could figure this out on your own.
Consider me asking for help then. I’ve read the wikipedia article on war crimes and it says nothing about the reasons you gave. I’ve wathced a YouTube video before about war crimes that made me think that this probably wasn’t one but watching a video obviously doesn’t make me an expert and I hope you believe me when I say that I honestly want to find out whether this was a war crime or not.
i think this forum got the worst people from reddit
Because someone called out a war crime?
I’m honestly appalled by the number of comments here that are defending this evil, cowardly attack.
But I want Lemmy to be more like Reddit. /S
Fr now i am beginning to understand strict immigration enforcement, you can thank reddit immigrants for that
Fun fact: they were unarmed
Do you have a source for that? It didn’t say that in the article.
We obviously shouldn’t have attacked their country or navy, but it was a warship; my understanding is it would take a lot of expense and effort to make them unarmed…
Some of the people involved have said on social media it was a requirement. I didn’t see any evidence one way or the other.
TONS of countries were involved, including the US. This was, by any stretch of imagination, a shitty cowardly move.
This is just the start. The old world broke once russia invaded Ukraine and we did nothing. Now other countries have realized that the world wont do anything if they also attack. Expansion has once again started. I expect Taiwan to be finished by summer too.
china only wants taiwans chip factories, they arnt getting it if they invade.
What old world? The US committing war crimes is par for the course. This is the same kind of shit the US did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and more. The cruelty is the point. The difference now is that the current administration is too stupid to lie about it.
The old world broke when the US and UK invaded Iraq illegally in 2003. This is the natural consequence of that. If the people claiming to uphold them don’t follow the rules because they are strong enough, then if we are strong enough we can do anything we want.
I know the UK went along with the Iraq war but remember it was the US that lied and convinced the UK to join in, not that it matters too much, but still.
They did lie, but it was a pretty blatant lie, and it was still contrary to all international law.
I get this vibe that no one knows what’s going on anymore and everything is just running on the fumes of the zeitgeist and conspiracy theories.
I find the fact that the whole world “knows” that China will invade Taiwan in 2027 to be really strange. And this has been the case for years. It feels like certain groups are taking it as a foregone conclusion.
Because in a sea of massive uncertainty and chaos that’s around us today, China invading Taiwan in the middle of this makes the most sense out of anything that’s happening right now. It makes so much sense, that everyone has collectively realized it would be stupid for China not to invade Taiwan right now.
I mean, it’s really, really bad for the world, but it would be stupid if they didn’t do it and take advantage of what’s happening everywhere.
China taking Taiwan makes zero sense. It’s a peaceful island next to gigantic mainland China and they can easily coexist like this
Tell that to China
Any time. And they probably know that if they start warring against the peaceful island, the worlds perspective on them changes for good. Tibet was already bad, but they didn’t have the means to spread their message like today and China got away with it.
And yet China is doing its new 5 year plan and that involves changing its language on Taiwan from “resolutely oppose” to “resolutely fight against” Taiwan.
It’s weird how the US is turning into everything it fought against. Was fun while it lasted.
Can’t bring about Armageddon without breaking a few eggs.
the us has always been like this.
the monroe doctrine and overt colonialism have only been revived.
John McCain is celebrating wildly in Hell. Bombing Iran has been an American dream for decades!
This is the US and it always has been. The current administration is just stupider than previous ones. They don’t realize that hiding US war crimes served a purpose. They think bragging about their depravity will halt American decline. In reality, it will do the opposite as people like you lose faith in the inherent virtue of the American project.
Can we stop inventing fake shit please? The US has never been a force against evil except for that one time 80 years ago.
I think the op is talking about that certain time but ok
Did we fight against it or did we hide our war crimes better?
There’s a reason at least half the world despises the US
latin america checking in
deleted by creator
Are you lost?
deleted by creator
Lot of gymnastics here. This is pretty simple: do not move your unarmed warship through international waters so you can arm it and join an active conflict while your aggressor is literally right next to you.
The Iranian admiral who ordered this ship to sail is an idiot and this ship was fair game.
Fucking wild takes in these comments…
How much did you get paid to say that? It’s worse if this a self developed belief.
I get paid in downvotes from people who can’t think. I get paid in replies empty of any rebuttal.
Yes, and schoolchildren will eventually grow up and reach fighting age so they are also fair game. Parents that sent those kids to school are idiots.
Oh, and parents can have more kids so they are also fair game. People that decided to be born in Iran are idiots.
Your routine was ambitious but I think you stuck the landing. 10/10.
Gymnastics my arse. It was an attack on an unarmed ship.
During a war these grubs can’t justify. Maggots they are.
An unarmed what? What kind of ship was it? Headed to where? To be armed to with what? To do what?
The war is not justifiable. But given the context that frigate was done the moment it sailed.
An unarmed what
Ship, with human lives on it
What kind…
Unarmed. Vulnerable.
Headed to where
Home port which still doesn’t justify sinking an unarmed ship
To be armed…
To do what
Then it might be fair game if this war was legitimate but it isn’t. It was only done the moment it sailed because Americans are war criminals and the bad guys.
America being bad doesn’t make your logic good.
I understand this isn’t necessarily hinged on just the legality but it is fair game under the laws of warfare even if the war is an illegal one.
Exactly. It was a cynical and cruel action but it was legal, I just looked after the rules. It’s a fucking warship, doesn’t matter if the Iranians claim it was unarmed (or if it actually was).
Also, submarines are not required to provide rescuse, as surfacing would cause a risk to them. They are obliged to notify others that rescue is needed.
The US is doing many horrible and clearly illegal things. We can also argue about the ethics of this torpedo attack, but it was not illegal and not a war crime.
Here is a professor from Australia explaining: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2026/march/us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didnt-rescue-survivors-is-this-legal-in-war
What would you rate the somersault though?
There is no carpet bombing of Tehran. This person is thus not a reputable source and you need to start doubting the rest of the claims until you find a better source.
Ryan Grim is an investigative journalist who has a strong track record of accurate and groundbreaking reporting. Whatever semantics arguments you have doesn’t make him any less reputable or this statement any less correct.
Hey, your reporter with “a strong track record” is posting gossip to discredit the Iranian opposition leader: https://x.com/i/status/2028841292856254552
He’s providing context to help people understand what a Kurdish Iranian imam was saying about a washed up son of a former dictator. I’m not sure what’s more pathetic, your lack of reading comprehension or that you genuinely think Pahlavi is an “Iranian opposition leader”. lol
Reza Pahlavi is the de facto opposition leader. I know this, because I’m knee deep in the Iranian comma through family and friends. I speak the language and follow their media.
There’s a lot of other things I found when cursorily looking into Ryan Grim and Drop Site News, of which he’s a co-founder.
For example, they’re interviewing Iran’s deputy foreign minister without asking any uncomfortable questions: https://www.youtube.com/live/9pU9x3sQ2-s
The coverage of the January 8-9 massacres is severely lacking. There is a lot of space given to the Islamic regime’s propaganda, for example this piece that claims to be “from the ground”: https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/interview-tehran-iran-protests-internet-blackout-israel-trump-pahlavi-riots
This account tries extremely hard to paint a picture that an organization was behind the protests, that it is “inorganic”. The articles spreads misinformation, distorts reality and ignores the brutality of the Islamic regime.
So what I see when I look at Ryan Grim’s reporting, is cherry picking of sources to fit an agenda.
Yeah sure, the guy cheering on as the US and Israel murder Iranian children and civilians is such an outstanding leader. He’s so good at opposing Iran, he claps when the blood of Iranian children is spilled. That will surely show those mullahs! What else can you expect from son of a dictator. His father committed mass atrocities against the Iran people after overthrowing Iranian democracy with the support of the CIA. Those are definitely the qualifications Iranian people want in a leader. It’s certainly not just the US, Israel, and a number of bitter exiled monarchists pretending Pahlavi is king.
Also it’s really hilarious that you linked pieces by Jeremy Scahill. The guy is an even better journalist than Ryan Grim. He won a number of awards for his on the ground reporting on American wars in the Middle East. How arrogant do you have to be to assume you know the region better than he does?
Also he’s not saying the protests were “inorganic”. Thats just a lie. He’s trying to understand to what extent Israeli and American assets acted as agent provocateurs which isn’t a crazy thing to try and investigate! It’s a known fact that the CIA and Mossad operate in Iran and have carried out acts of sabotage and assassination. Do you really think on the advent of a war the US and Israel wouldn’t try to take advantage of internal unrest? Amazing lol
They mean striking civilian targets when they say carpet bombing, they don’t mean WW2 style mass dumb bombing.
They mean what they say and it is propaganda. In addition, the amount of civilian targets hit are few. The Islamic regime itself is responsible for a lot more deaths. The opinions of regime-critical Iranians inside the country can be summarized like this: yes, bombs are scary, but the regime is more scary.
The Islamic regime itself is responsible for a lot more deaths.
STOP JUSTIFYING THIS. YOU. ARE. BRAINWASHED.
Bro two hospitals and a school where they haven’t shown a valid target nearby is three civilian targets too many for the most technologically advanced military in the world.
Double tapping is just fuel on a bonfire but sure if prevaricating for fascists is your deal then carry on.
Removed by mod
10 years ago
Keyword used to be, we have the largest Intel apparatus of any nation, combine that with Israel being at the very least top ten especially when it comes to Iran.
They knew, stop trying to make excuses for the inexcusable.
I still don’t think they knew, or at least mistakes were made. I don’t see any reason to stike like 500 military targets and then just that particular school.
People give the US too much credit
edit: as a mod seems to have deleted my post for some vague reason, here’s the article I referred to
Are you arguing semantics over the use of “carpet bombing”? Because it was definitely bombed.
Bombed, yes. Carpet bombed, no.
Which means they were targeted, which is somehow so much worse.
… so they precision struck those targets then?
Your problem with Ryan Grim is he didn’t paint a bad enough picture?
It seems to be a tragic case of incorrect intel that lead to the school in Minab being targeted. I hope the US will take responsibility for it and improve procedures, this is not acceptable.
Carpet bombing is a way to discredit the attacks to indiscriminately target civilians. This is not the case. Yes, civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time sadly get caught in the cross fire, and sometimes intel is wrong. But the attacks so far have not proven to deliberately target civilians.
Fair enough.
IDK. Kind of sounds like some shit Russia would do. 😒
Sounds like rubbish Israel, USA and other Nazi states would do.
Sounds like some shit the US did do.
“russia would do” - when you say that to yourself remember that phrase is propaganda. it’s literally some shit the USA did do. Your “IDK” is cognitive dissonance.
😖
Yes, it’s us. We did this. WE’RE THE NEW RUSSIA!
Bruh you’re not the “new Russia”, Russia is america Lite. Has been since the fall of the USSR. You’ve always been this. You killed millions of Iraqi while pretending to liberate them. Same in Vietnam, same in Korea.
This is what you’ve always been; hopefully when Trump is out of office you stay in reality and don’t fall back to the dream you believed prior to Trump.
You are Nazi’s, not Russian. Death to the US.
Russia was never relevant. The USSR failed.
It was empire
Then feudalism
Then the advent of the ruling of the mercantile class.
Next will be rule by the people.
Lol. We aren’t the new Russia. We’re just continuing to be the same war crime committing monsters we’ve been for centuries.
Well Russia didn’t do it because they don’t have the “fuck you” power that the US has. Russia sucks and is a huge danger, but this is absolutely not the time to whataboutism about them. I really hope you’re being ironic, because otherwise it’s just providing cover for mass murder.
I mean… there can be two murderous ruthless sadistic powers on earth. Three even! I’ll let you choose the third.
Russia, USA, and Israel.
I was thinking of China, but I like yours better.
China is bad, but it’s it worse than the these to 3. I doubt it.
The west considers it worst since
- It’s not an European or white nation, which is technologically advanced.
- It’s daring to reject European interference.
- It is communist.
- It is trying to be the next hegemony.
It is bad because
- It is a dictatorship
- There are a lot of human rights abuse happening in is own country.
- It does try to be the next USSR.
I was thinking about how it treat minorities and their threats to Taiwan and how that would impact the global balance and economy.
I don’t care about their race, claimed economic system or government.
But Israel is a genocidal regime, so as of 2026 definitely worse. China has potential to do more damage, tho.
And whataboutisms do not help either case. They just muddy the water and derail the conversation. If you want to talk about Russia or China, the US fighting this awful war only helps other competing empires. Russia is more likely to carve further into Europe, China is more guaranteed to take Taiwan, and other countries will race towards nuclear deterrents even harder then they were. Many more people are dead and will die because of this path America has driven us into. It is horrific and America needs to be stopped to make everyone safer.
It’s not whataboutism, it’s condemning both and NOT letting the existence of other justify the actions of one.
That’s not the way it comes across. It was just as annoying when people did the “what about American imperialism!” when Russia first invaded Ukraine. Timing matters
Equatorial Guinea!
The People’s Dictatorship of Antarctica
Greenland! It’s soooo obviously Greenland. It all makes sense now!
What the actual fuck? The US has turned into a parody of itself. It’s sad to see.
This is who we always were. Real time media for events out of sight and earshot is relatively new. And that’s partly why they want to heavily censor and spy on us.
Well, when you elect clowns…
It is my first belief that this is the point.
And Putin is quite happy.
Well don’t think he’s that happy since his supply of drones most likely has dried up
If I understand right, ruzzia has long since started to develop and innovate domestically upon the design of Shaheds, and I don’t think they were receiving that many relative to domestic production, though I agree it’s a thorn in Putin’s side presumably.
Though I have some other theories as to the bigger game being played here but just theories and speculation.
make sense why the right wing talking heads hes paying isnt spreading anti-iran propaganda, he mostly certain is trying to formulate a way to discredit the war, but hasnt yet.
Yes, Putin probably enjoys this, but this is not trump alone. He has the support of the whole republican party, or at least 95% of it.
He has support of the US. They voted for him and for his ‘opposition’ of cowards that can do nothing but watch cry crocodile tears.
I agree it’s not but like AIPAC I don’t think it’s a stretch that the broader cartel that is the GOP realizes their reelection hinges on the bilateral relationship with Russia. They’ve been in cahoots for at least 2 decades or more.
is this honestly a surprise? :(
Every statement of this tweet is factually false.
The US did and does horrible things, but the attack of this ship was legal: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2026/march/us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didnt-rescue-survivors-is-this-legal-in-war
It was a cruel and cynical attack, but it adhered to the rules of warfare.
This doesn’t change that Trump is a monster and this war is horrible, but this torpedo attack itself was legal.
Edit: anybody thinking I’m defending Trump or his war on Iran can check my post history. This is my post from literally 1 day ago:
Where in the tweet did he even type the word “illegal”?
So the US is at war? I don’t remember Congress declaring that.
Doesn’t matter. Even if it was started illegally, in an armed conflict the rules of warfare apply
So, do you mean that the US wasn’t invited in the Naval exercise?
If the war is illegal, all actions taken under it are illegal.
Nope. Even if the war was started illegally, as soon as there is an armed conflict, the same rules of warfare apply.
Nothing in the content of that tweet is refuted by your link, everything in the tweet is factually true. The “rules of warfare” comment refers to leaving the survivors to die only to be rescued by Sri Lankan forces, instead of helping them as they are mandated to do. The submarine was under no risk being in that region, and by avoiding helping the survivors, it committed a war crime.
Tell us, what else in the above tweet is false? The military exercise? The Iranian boat being unarmed? The US pulling out of the exercise to carry out an attack against unarmed members of the Iranian navy? All of that is true. Why are you making such a fool of yourself to defend the Epstein coalition?
In the part about rescuing the survivors, he is correct in that the US adhered within the laws of naval warfare.
A submarine is not expected to be able to rescue sailors. A precedence dating back to WW2 when a German submarine DID rescue allied sailors, surfacing and carrying them on top of their sub while towing a lifeboat. They were then fired upon by allied forces, and were forced to cut the line and submerge. After that. Orders were issued to submarines to not engage in rescue operations.
Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It’s possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility.
What the law says, is you need to take all possible measures. Surfacing isn’t seen as a possible measure. And where would they even keep them? Subs are cramped enough as it is.
The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message about the coordinates of the sinking. Which does fall in line with “all possible measures”
The guy isn’t defending anyone. He clearly said he thinks the war is illegal and Trump is a monster.
From the linked article:
These rules apply to naval warfare and require belligerents, so far as military circumstances permit, to assist survivors at sea.
In practice, however, submarines face particular challenges in fulfilling this obligation. Surfacing to rescue survivors may expose them to significant risk. You also can’t usually fit a large number of survivors on a submarine.
If a submarine cannot safely surface to rescue survivors, it may instead facilitate rescue by reporting their location to other vessels or authorities.
“Surfacing […] may expose them to significant risk”. Tell me which risk the submarine was facing in Sri fucking Lanka after sinking an Iranian boat.
Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It’s possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility
Tell me which strike aircraft model Iran possesses that can travel the thousands of kilometers from Iran to Sri Lanka and then back without refueling on the way (Iran, unlike the US, doesn’t have military bases in half the planet). This is bullshit speculation, and the “possibility of air strikes from half an ocean away” argument would render this law of rescue entirely useless forever. Tell me, which risk of retaliation was the US facing when striking and murdering fishermen off the coast of Venezuela and leaving them to die?
The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message
Again entirely speculation. Let’s see the country of origin of the author. Oh, it’s an Aussie defense analyst, I’m sure this is totally unbiased and not a propaganda piece to defend western attacks to Iranians!
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I’m not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.
But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.
There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the “all possible measures” of conducting rescue.
You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.
And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?
I assume it’s some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.
I’ll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it’s state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.
Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.
Anything else I didn’t cover that you need to know about?
What they did do was notify Sri Lanka
We have literally no source for this other than a western analyst speculating about it, what are you talking about?
And why are you bringing up Venezuela?
Because a country not showing any kind of problem carrying out repeated war crimes will continue to carry them out?
I don’t know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters
Yet you’re quick to speculate about airstrike capabilities of Iranian air forces as an excuse for US submarines leaving Iranian navy personnel to die in the water, using a western analyst’s speculations in a clearly US-biased article.
Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a “friendly” aircraft. It’s hardly surprising they don’t want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.
The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.
I’m sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn’t one of them.
So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.
Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.
You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don’t you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?
Thanks for the sane comment. Anybody can check my posts and see that I hate the orange clown. That doesn’t change the facts about this submarine attack.
