Officials in New Delhi say that an Iranian warship that was sunk by a U.S. submarine near Sri Lanka had participated in naval exercises hosted by India before heading out into international waters in the Indian Ocean on its way home.
      • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        38·
        2 months ago

        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.

      • flandish@lemmy.worldEnglish
        25·
        2 months ago

        “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.

          • njm1314@lemmy.worldEnglish
            8·
            2 months ago

            Lol. We aren’t the new Russia. We’re just continuing to be the same war crime committing monsters we’ve been for centuries.

          • CommanderCloon@lemmy.mlEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            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.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.worldEnglish
      416·
      2 months ago

      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:

    • MrSpArkle@lemmy.caEnglish
      628·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • stylusmobilus@aussie.zoneEnglish
        132·
        2 months ago

        Gymnastics my arse. It was an attack on an unarmed ship.

        During a war these grubs can’t justify. Maggots they are.

        • MrSpArkle@lemmy.caEnglish
          47·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • stylusmobilus@aussie.zoneEnglish
            103·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • 73ms@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              4·
              2 months ago

              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.

      • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
        16·
        2 months ago

        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.

          • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            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

              • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                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

      • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        They mean striking civilian targets when they say carpet bombing, they don’t mean WW2 style mass dumb bombing.

          • Madison420@lemmy.worldEnglish
            19·
            2 months ago

            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.

          • Sunforged@lemmy.mlEnglish
            102·
            2 months ago

            The Islamic regime itself is responsible for a lot more deaths.

            STOP JUSTIFYING THIS. YOU. ARE. BRAINWASHED.

  • driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.brEnglish
    853·
    2 months ago

    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?

    • Typhoon@lemmy.caEnglish
      83·
      2 months ago

      They could’ve done that with Venezuela’s “drug boats” too but didn’t. That’s because the goal was actually to kill people.

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        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.

    • DreamlandLividity@lemmy.worldEnglish
      232·
      2 months ago

      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.

  • tidderuuf@lemmy.worldEnglish
    588·
    2 months ago

    It’s weird how the US is turning into everything it fought against. Was fun while it lasted.

  • BC_viper@lemmy.worldEnglish
    504·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • paraphrand@lemmy.worldEnglish
      151·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • ptu@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          23·
          2 months ago

          China taking Taiwan makes zero sense. It’s a peaceful island next to gigantic mainland China and they can easily coexist like this

            • ptu@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              2·
              2 months ago

              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.

              • Aussieiuszko@aussie.zoneEnglish
                11·
                2 months ago

                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.

    • cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.mlEnglish
      121·
      2 months ago

      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.

    • raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      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 :)

      • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        … 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.

        • brad_troika@lemmy.worldEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • sp3ctr4l@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            21·
            2 months ago

            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.

            • brad_troika@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              2 months ago

              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.

          • الله@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            2 months ago

            Fr now i am beginning to understand strict immigration enforcement, you can thank reddit immigrants for that

        • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          21·
          2 months ago

          Because someone called out a war crime?

          I’m honestly appalled by the number of comments here that are defending this evil, cowardly attack.

  • GuyIncognito@lemmy.caEnglish
    16·
    2 months ago

    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:

    1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
    2. 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.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • GuyIncognito@lemmy.caEnglish
        2·
        2 months ago

        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.

  • TheObviousSolution@lemmy.caEnglish
    81·
    2 months ago

    The US desperately needs to change the regime, because otherwise they know the same will happen to their oil tankers eventually.