'Cowardly and Despicable': Hegseth Condemned for Sinking of ‘Defenseless’ Iranian Ship
(www.commondreams.org)
from floofloof@lemmy.ca to world@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 22:13
https://lemmy.ca/post/61364514
from floofloof@lemmy.ca to world@lemmy.world on 05 Mar 22:13
https://lemmy.ca/post/61364514
cross-posted from: ibbit.at/post/194010
From Common Dreams via this RSS feed
#world
threaded - newest
I hope the sub mutinies.
The ones that followed his order? Apparently not.
In the calmest of times submarines have poor connectivity with the outside world, so there’s no telling what they’ve been told.
They have been told that they are to engage with any Iranian vessels and to disregard international law (including the Genova Convention and such.)
German chancelor said this too. It seems all these elites are already “in” on it.
They’re told to be warriors!
/s
You joke but warlord Pete probably has said that
He ordered a double tap 🤷♂️
Accidental double click, must be using a well worn Logitech G500 series (those mice are notorious about the bad switches used in them which results in regular double clicks after about 2.5 years of use).
Corsair seems to suffer that same issues.
Anyone have any reqs for durable ambidextrous/left handed mice with thumb switches?
Yep. Had to replace the switches in mine after 4 years. Was a g502 but the point is the same. Could not use it as double and triple clicks became commonplace.
I’ve seen plenty of data points to suggest the IDF is running America and this is one of them
The part where Rubio just flat out said Israel wanted war so now we’re in it, was a pretty big one…
Link? Didn’t see that
Ha, IDF are chumps compared to who’s running America (and probably your country, too).
It’s right out in the open, really. Look at THE FED for clues
These are not nationalist interests
They torpedoed an unarmed ship and watched as everyone drowned. This is the US military under a drunken white supremacist fratboy working for a senile pedophile rapist.
Typically submarines aren’t in a position to offer refuge to shipwrecked sailors, but to my recollection there hasn’t been submarine warfare since WWII. They sank a ship that didn’t present any threat and likely could have been neutralized with a number of alternate approaches.
Yup but also, the idea of submarines providing rescue went out the window. Even the nazis were trying to rescue people at one point, and the allies attacked them after they broadcasted their rescue attempts
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laconia_incident
The US has the most powerful military in the world. This was just cruelty
US carrying out war crimes since World War II.
Since before that.
The UK used submarines during the Falklands war.
The decision was made to sink an Argentinian warship. Critically, they didn’t attack the escort ship. They left it to recover the sailors. Apparently it horrified the British command when it ran, leaving sailors in the water.
A simple radio message “Move and we will sink you. Take no offensive actions and we will give you 5 minutes to launch lifeboats first.” Hell, even a sonar ping would have given them half a chance.
Hey hey whoa whoa whoa, hold up there friend. You forgot Christian nationalist death cultist and pseudo-crusader-wannabe.
Iirc, its an unwritten law of sailors… You rescue anyone at sea, even the enemy if you can. Drowning is a horrible death.
You at least do what you can to give them a fighting chance.
A radio message would have at least let them abandon ship in a (semi) orderly manner. Hell, even a solar ping would have got them into life jackets.
Normally, a sub wouldn’t risk this. They knew in advance, however, that the ship was not currently armed.
I’m pretty sure it’s actually a written rule.
The sailors are just as much to be blamed for executing the order as the commanders who sent it.
Pete Hegseth is a fucking war criminal and he fucking better be prosecuted for this.
Hell freezes over before US war criminals are properly prosecuted. There is even some weird law that the US invades The Hague, if they detain US personal
en.wikipedia.org/…/American_Service-Members'_Prot…
and then they pretend the rest of the world hates America because they don’t like freedom…
How do we make that happen?
Revolution
Just like rumsfield and cheney! America got this!
Bombing defenseless ships had been Kegsbreath’s hobby and pass time since last fucking year
Bloodthirsty maga savages did not even give the boys a chance to surrender. You see why Iran regards the Yanks as “The Great Satan”? 1
The us is insane. But looking for sympathy for a religious ethnostate that just murdered thousands of its civilians is a lol. GTFO 🤣
Everyone sucks here and I couldn’t care less since it’s in the sea in warships. Fuck every last one of both these war mongers.
Things were much better in Iran 10 years ago. They were enjoying quite moderate times. But then The Great Satan stabbed them in the back when Trump betrayed the Nukes Deal.
There’s a million valid reasons Trumpism is evil, but excusing the utter cruelty the Iranian government wields isn’t one of them.
Explain how “great satan” forced the Iranian government to murder, maim, jail, and rape protestors last month.
You don’t have to excuse anything. In WW2, the US had segregation, the European allies had brutal overseas empires, and the USSR had a police state. Still better than Nazi Germany.
Okay, they definitely didn’t just kill thousands of their own people and that definitely would have been Americas fault because treaty 🙄
No. Things were much better in Iran in the 70’s before the Islamic revolution took power in 79.
Things were so great that the government got overthrown. People got tired of winning, said “Shah, we can’t take so much prosperity!”
Is that so hard to believe? Or do I need to remind you that ISIS once controlled regions in the middle East. They weren’t exactly known for their promotion of prosperity, running around burning people alive, destroying museums, raping women and demolishing ancient statues and ruins.
And just like ISIS, we will one day be rid of America and Israel
you mean the CIA backed coup was actually a grassroots movement?
Cowardly and despicable… in other words, Trump’s entire administration.
Release the Epstein Files
That should be an automatic declaration of war.
Aren’t we, like, way past that point…?
Iran certainly thinks so
When you blow up their leader then keep bombing their cities, that usually is a good reason to think so.
Also because Trump keeps calling it “war”.
War™*
*For legal reasons not an actual war.
Not according to Congress.
*Special torpedo operation
What a little fucking loser bitch!
Its crazy how the whole world is to much of a pussy to do anything to the US.
The US has the single most powerful military force in the world. So when a deranged orange psychopath who has the ego of a cracked eggshell has access to the nuclear football that can call upon the destruction of life as we know it, you’d be careful too.
Okay you maybe right however if no one won’t do anything about it then don’t bitch about it.
What exactly do you think I should be doing?
Thankfully, we’re currently reaching the offense side of the pendulum, where defenses haven’t caught up yet and made a stalemate. The $20,000 drones that are being used are going to overwhelm the $4,000,000 missiles used to stop them.
Perhaps america will get just enough of a kick in the teeth for our government to reel itself in and take care of our war criminals and profiteers… /cue_maniacal_laughter at that thought ever actually happening.
I could literally give zero fucks about an Iranian/Russian/ us/French/ Canadian war ship. I hope all the warships from every country kill each other. But please bring Petey with you.
More than 50% of the US voted for this.
About 100% of the US have no issues with this. Or when did you start opposing your government in another form, instead of complaining online? Other governments have been overthrown for less.
Anyways, fighting for the US or Iranian army is quite stupid nowadays. Nothing “proud” if you fight for a fascist or religious leader.
Says guy online, also doing nothing to physically stop the world’s largest military or assassinate that nation’s horrible leaders.
Oh fuck off. You know what would have been a real easy way to stop these cunts? If fucking American dipshits had gotten off of their fat fucking arses and voted against him. The American people are solely to blame for these arseholes, nobody else. Own it.
“We are a powerful nation, so we can do nothing to stop this.”
Impeccable.
Clean your own mess.
Why should I? You are aware, that there are people living outside the borders of the US? And they all give zero fucks.
It was under 49% of under 66%, or 32%, tops who voted for this. Still heinous, but I suppose that doesn’t fit the narrative of “most Americans are terrible!”
By your logic, Europeans 100% don’t have any issue with what America does because they fall in line and do America’s bidding most of the time. Otherwise, they would have effectively changed their government(s) to one(s) that do not go along to get along, instead of just complaining online, right?
Sure. Just ignore what Germany does, because their Chancellor is a dipshit, too. Now tell me again what Spain did recently? Seems like you forgot that majority of Europe does NOT play along
I wish none of them would play along. But I don’t vilify every citizen of the countries that do.
Yep, and what said the Nazi in court, when he was asked why he killed hundrets of Jews? “I just followed my orders”.
Guilty as fuck, so is every single service member or government employee.
77m voted for Trump which is 32% of the voting age population.
As a percentage of the overall population it is ~23%.
More than half of America did not vote for this. Stop making stuff up.
People who don’t vote are part of the problem. That’s how democracy works. I know, ‘muricans struggle to understand this concept.
The Iranians are fighting for the survival of their country against the nazi pedophile coalition. thet are in no way comparable to those fighting for the nazi pedophile imperialists, despite many aspects of Iranian governance being unsavoury.
Okay just ignore the fact that 30k protestors were killed, the oppression of literally anything for decades and the killing of anyone who raised the voice against the Supreme Leader.
I was going to give a proper reply explaining the historical and geopilitical context, but I realized it would be like arguing witth a German in 1941 why I want the Soviet Union to win the war rather than the Reich, so I’ll ixnay that. May Iran continue to strike hard at the American and Israeli aggressors, and may they humiliate the nazi pigs for all the world to see.
Oh I agree, Israel has to be gone, and the fascist ‘muricans, too. But I also don’t mind that Khamenei is dead, as religious extremists are not one bit better than a zionist or nazi.
I’ll take moderate shia theocrats over nazis any day, but I digress. The truth is that Iran’s government has hardline factions and moderate factions. Outrside aggression makes the hardline faction stronger, and if America just left Iran alone, the moderates would eventually be predominant and Iran would eventually moderate into a secular or quasi-secular state.
However, at the same time the moderates are also the more neoliberal faction, while the religious conservatives are more economically progressive - kind of like Sharia law social democrats, in a sense.
And you know what is funny about all the shit Israel now caused? The CIA is actually very good at overthrowing foreign governments from the inside. It probably would have worked for Iran, as there are too many people remembering the good old Persian days. But Bibi and his right wing Jews just made everything worse, even for the citizens of Israel and Palestine.
The plan of economic sabotage and infiltration probably would have worked, but they’ve gone and shot themselves in the dick. They just can’t help it!
I hope he angers Khrusty Noem to point of. Welp, we all know what she does when upset & confronted. Is there a line on what animal/or hegseth she might ixnay in retaliation for her unfortunate day? I know she was simply laterally moved b/c now she is S.H.E.I.L.D. Barbie. Oh Lawd, I wish so hard I was making this up. But nah, we are at this point on the map.🙏
I think it’s clear that Americans were always so ruthless, depraved and racist. Over the past decades they simply had good PR. They killed thousands of civilians in Hiroshima just to show off and then engaged in decades long campaign of murder, rape and plunder all over the world. The only thing that saved them from being seen for what they are was good marketing: movies selling the American dream, well behaved politicians pretending they are leading civilized country and economic power keeping everyone else in check. This is simply the mask falling off. Trump and his administration are to stupid to play the PR game and everyone can see what US really is.
So just ‘men’ then? Or you don’t have genocide in Africa?
But if Americans are specially racists and ruthless is an interesting question. On one hand I’m pretty sure they simply took advantage of their position on international stage and many other countries would do the same in their situation. Russians for sure are not better. On the other hand any country could oppress big parts of their population the way US does and most civilized countries don’t do it. US is leading the world in mass incarceration, still loves death penalty and is practicing slavery. European countries could do the same but don’t for some reason. Is lack of power the only reason? I think American ideology has a lot to do with it. It managed to create the richest shithole in the world and that’s a very unique achievement. Personally I think it is the result of brainwashing every American goes trough.
I read somewhere how the educational system in the British Empire was specifically designed to create people able to ruthlessly govern over vast population of people. Is American system designed in the same way? A mix of superiority and stupidity that makes people immune to self-reflection and ready to brutalize everyone they see as the lower class?
No ethnicity has a monopoly on racism. It is global to the human condiction. It may be that in European / US it’s predominantly by white European people. But it’s not hard to find examples of it all around the world, extant and from the past where ethnicity, caste, religion, language is used as an excuse to hate on and subjugate some outside group.
I’m not sure of the ethnicities of the US personnel that drowned the unharmed Iranians but statistically speaking not all of the were white men but all of them US Americans.
So probably racist is not the right word.
Iran’s military would NEVER attack a defenseless target!
oh.
How about we destroy all of their military assets and if the soldiers don’t want to get killed, they can desert?
When you have to prove that US is actually not worse than a brutal regime but only just as bad you’re not doing as great as you think.
Okay but what armed conflict ever do you sit and wait for them to pick up ammo.
Basically the one in which you don’t want to look like an asshole and a monster. US is not going to face any consequences here, this all about optics. US started the entire conflict and has big advantage. It didn’t have to kill all those people. It chose to do it and did in the most cowardly way. Any invader doing something like this would be condemned and US is simply proving they are as depraved as any other brutal regime. For now they are simply as bad as the Nazis or the Soviets but looks like they are trying to prove they are actually worse.
who the fuck are you destroy other countries military assets? americans are all scum without any exception, fuck off
Whataboutism.
How about we try and be better behaved than goddamned terrorists?
No? You don’t want to meet that incredibly low standard? Then congrats, you’re also a terrorist. Great job. America is a terrorist nation under Donald “Pig who rapes kids” Trump.
“We”?
Where you deployed to, chickenhawk?
Who was the sub captian that obeyed the illegal order? Name rank and serial number please.
Hot take, if you elect a person who showed in their first term a total disrespect for international, national, and martial law maybe the kind of people you have in the armed forces aren’t likely to be any better. The smart, moral people who also were high enough in the chain of command to matter have likely been purged or jumped ship to something less problematic.
The naive belief that any laws matter at this late hour is hard to understand, and harder to respect. This isn’t going to blow over and “go back to normal.” Which incidentally wasn’t great either.
Well, I less care about prosecution that isn’t going to happen, and more about name and shame. That can do a lot to shape future behaviour.
It was not an illegal order. And it’s also entirely possible the captain didn’t know the status of the ships ammunition supply, or lack there of. Not that it changes anything from a legal standpoint.
But, it being a legal target doesn’t change the fact that it was cowardly. Both are true.
How was it a legal target? We are not at war as idiot orange says.
Actually the orange idiot keeps saying you are. It was Mike Johnson going the SMO route
Only Congress can declare war. Until then it’s a conflict.
A war is a war whether the aggressor decides to officially call it that or not
War - Noun -fighting, using soldiers and weapons, between two or more countries, or two or more groups inside a country - Cambridge Dictionary
It’s just as much a war as Putin’s war in Ukraine is. The fact that Congress hasn’t gotten round to declaring it yet is moot
Oh I know, and you know, but there are legal definitions and issues with what he’s doing. Not that any of that matters regardless to the asshats in charge.
You are in a defacto war. Despite whatever orange man says. The ship was inside international waters. It belongs to the nation you are attacking. It was a military ship. It is a legal target.
What’s not a legal target are the civilian boats they shot down outside of Venezuela.
So usa’s ships are legal targets for all world countries?
Rules for thee not for me
Legal by whose standards? The international law’s? No one enforces that. Unless it’s to benefit the richest. Most international law is followed basically on the honor system.
By the US’s standards, everything is legal because the president has no limitations because our government will never pass those limitations on a president. If it was illegal, no one is can or will enforce it.
Who cares about “legal”?
Attacking a military ship is generally not a war crime (as defined by international law such as the Geneva treaties, Rome Statute etc…). It is an act of war (same as invasion or bombardment of another country), and is likely to see retaliation by the attacked country.
Aggression (i.e. unprovoked acts of war) is against the Charter of the United Nations, which also includes the International Court of Justice as a dispute resolution mechanism. It is up to the United Nations Security Council (at which the US has a veto) to authorise enforcement of ICJ rulings.
If a nation is acting to protect another nation facing aggression from the US, it would be legal for the attack US military ships. The reason why they wouldn’t would more be that it would likely bring counter-retaliation from the US.
If you want to start a war with the US, sure.
Even the Japanese technically declared war before they attacked pearl harbor. That the US gov was too disorganized to get the message to pearl harbor is not their fault.
He also decided to not help the survivors.
It’s a submarine. What do you expect them to do? They are not equipped to handle POW’s
It is believed Sri Lanka was notified which were at the scene quickly after it sank.
They surface, they deploy lifeboats. They treat the wounded and hand them off to locals. Just like submarines have been doing for a very long time. As was pointed out, even the Nazis didn’t abandon survivors. Sri Lanka may have been their quickly, but quickly in nautical terms is hours at best. The sub could have hung around and aided the survivors at least that long.
You are right about nazi subs helping sailors. They would carry them on top of the sub, while towing the rest from a lifeboat. And then they stoped doing that. Because they were fired upon by allied planes while they were towing the lifeboat. So they cut the line and submerged.
That was the last time a submarine tried to help sailors in WW2.
Submarine countermeasures have only increased since then.
Another reason for the submarine to not surface is because they don’t want to let anyone else know which submarine is where.
I’m not gonna say sinking an unarmed warship returning from an exercise is cool. But it’s not a war crime if it’s in international waters, And it’s also not a war crime for a submarine to remained submerged. They are simply not expected to conduct rescue operations.
Sure.
ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/…/2017
If you actually bothered to read what you linked. You would see this paragraph
And also
So do we really think Iran had sub killing capabilities in that area so far from home? It does say determined in good faith. You could argue that the captain’s superiors may know something he doesn’t, but cna you argue in good faith that they would withhold information about a threat to his sub in the area? Good faith would mean just claiming there might have been doesn’t count.
Sub killing capabilities as of right now. I highly doubt it.
But it would not be unreasonable to think they might have sent a mig to investigate. Submarines have very limited radar capabilities. It could be dangerous for them to surface for a prolonged time to conduct rescue.
How plausible is that? Probably not very, a Kuwaiti f18 shooting down 3 friendly f15 is also pretty low on the plausibility scale. But it still happened.
I agree, the criteria of what is and isn’t good faith decisions with the information currently at hand is difficult to prove or disprove.
What is the story on those planes. Are they really saying one f18 shot down 3 f15s before noticing they were US jets? Would have to be long range missles I assume, but can they carry that many?
As far as I’m aware. They were all shot down by an F18. I don’t know if they’ve confirmed exactly which missile was used, but last i heard, it was believed to have been IR seeking missiles. Which are short range missiles compared to radar missiles which can probably go at least 10x as far.
Most modern jets are capable of carrying at least 6 missiles, as in, they have at least 6 hardpoints to attach weapons on. So the F18 carrying 3 is not a problem, I assume he had lot more than that.
But how they made that mistake I don’t understand. Jets have so many tools available to them to identify what it is they’re locking. Some speculate it wasn’t a mistake. That it was a pilot sympathetic to Iran. But that is just speculation.
So when you say short range… are we talking dogfight range?
Just seems like one jet taking out 3 should be harder. But if the speculation were to be true, I guees they could have willingly let him get behind them and stayed in formation or something. Do those jets even have the programming to fire at three targets simultaneously? I assumed nowadays dodging air to air missles wasn’t too hard if you knew it was coming. The high speeds on both the plane and missle should make it easier to avoid them meeting if that’s your goal.
well, there’s new footage from the ground, showing both the f18 and the third and final f15 in the same frame. So yes, that would be within what you called “dogfight range”
From what I’ve read and heard, the f15 were all cruising home at 300 knots. That is mach .45, so they are going quite slow, and they are not expecting any danger since they are now inside kuwaiti airspace.
I’d say it’s the opposite. It’s more difficult than ever to “dodge” a missile. Not that it can’t be done if the circumstances are in your favour.
In this case, the f15 is going subsonic. A missile coming from behind at probably mach 2-3. There’s nothing in the world a pilot can do about that.
No. You would have to “lock” the missile on your target, fire. Lock the next missile on your new target, fire, lock again for a third time, then fire.
But in the case of the third airplane shot down. The F18 was well within visual range. He should have been able to visually identify that those were F15 SE
For the dodging, the faster something goes, usually the easier it is to dodge because it can’t change direction as fast. Like a bullfighter stepping aside to let the bull run through the red cape. But I guess the target can’t change it’s position very fast, and would have a hard time timing the move against something coming that fast.
And for the third jet. How long do you think it would be between the first missle launch and the third? Like how much time did he theoretically have to react. I assume alarms would have gone off in the cockpit of all three when the first missle launched.
Hey, lots of text ahead, but it seemed like you wanted some information of the situation so I did my best.
For the dodging, it’s the opposite, the faster something goes, the harder it is to dodge it in the air. You can only move so fast, and you can only change direction so fast. Especially if you’re only doing 300 knots
The missile is faster than you, and it’s more maneuverable than you. Best case you can bleed it out of energy. But that’s not gonna happen in this situation.
The f18 shot them from within visual range. Don’t quote me on it. But from what I heard, he used IR seeking missiles. I don’t believe the planes can give you an alarm for them. They’re not blasting you with a detectable radar wave. It’s looking at your IR signature with a camera. In this case, from a rear aspect. And modern missiles will narrow their focus a lot to avoid locking onto flares. You’d have to pre-flare a lot, and/or bloom your flares out while making a maneuver to have even the slightest chance of avoiding it coming from the rear.
Regardless, even if they would get an alarm. I highly doubt there’s anything they could do. It’s very short range, they’re going slow. The missile is very fast. It’s like you decided to go to the bathroom. And mid shit someone kicks the door open and starts to punch you. You don’t exactly have a lot of options.
I do not have a time frame of the entire event. I’m not sure that kind of information have been made available. Though I have not been active in researching this daily. There are some very qualified people on YouTube that have been breaking down the few videos we have available. I’ve seen a few as they pop up. It’s a very strange situation.
Shooting down 1 friendly is bad, really really, really bad… it can happen. But it’s bad. Shooting down 2 is unthinkable, and 3, we’re into the territory of seriously considering it must have been deliberate.
Maybe at some point in the future we will get a full rapport of what and how it happened.
But the F18, if it had its radar on, should have seen that those were friendly contacts. Planes “squawk” a signal. And we use that to determine if it’s a friendly plane or not. Planes also have what’s called a RWR system. Radar Warning Reciever. It detects when you are hit by radar waves, and can thus give you an alarm that someone can see you. And this is also what will detect if you are locked on to by another plane.
But it can’t detect if something is visually locking on to you. Such as an IR seeking missile.
People familiar with the F18 and the training those pilots recieve, are very suspicious because they know what the training entails. You have to KNOW what it is you’re shooting at. If you’re not entirely 100% sure, they say the procedure is to fly within visual range and visually identify the target. At that point. It should be obvious for the pilot that it’s not a drone, it’s an aircraft. And it should be obvious that it’s first of all, not a mig29. And should also be obvious that Iran isn’t going to fly migs inside of Kuwait, while cruising at 300 knots.
Thanks, I do appreciate the condensed version you have here over watching a bunch of youtube vids myself. The vids are so slow. Lol.
I guess the maneuverability thing is fundamentally different in the air. On the ground, it’s easier to change direction or what not the slower you are going. Mainly I think because you depend on friction against the ground to move in any direction. But in the air of course you are redirecting the air passing over a surface to turn first, then that changes the thrust vector which combine to maneuver. So speed increases the effectiveness of the first part.
I wonder if you had some kind of very powerful burst jet that could provide significant up or down thrust paired with the normal up or down controls… could you relocate the aircraft enough for a missle to go by before it can adjust course. It would have to be timed by computer of course. And those things ain’t light. So it would have to be a heck of a lot of burst thrust in a perpendicular direction. But theoretically it should be doable. Just likely not practical.
Some planes also have thrust vectoring.
And there are ways to defeat missiles. But not when you’re caught with your pants down.
“Typically” or at least what you would expect from two major powers. Is that you see the other plane on radar long before you ever see it with your eyes. You’ll fire long range missiles, you assume they did the same. And then you start defensive maneuvers to bleed the missile out of energy.
And if you’re so close to that IR seeking missiles are an option. You’ll probably have to pre-flare a lot hoping their missiles lock on to your flares instead of you.
As to your theoretical idea. It is unfortunately not theoretically possible either. And you’ll just have to take my word for it. But I don’t think neither humans or aircrafts could survive the loads required
I did read it.
The action toke place half an ocean away from the combat theatre. There were no enemy naval nor aerial units around. There was no reasonable risk for the American sub.
But the captain decided not to help the survivors.
He is a war criminal and should be put on trial. But it won’t happen.
I’m sorry but you are wrong. The US have committed more than their fair share of war crimes. But this spcific incident isn’t one of them.
You say you read it, but it would then seem you purposefully ignored this part
You can look back and say “oh, they never sent a jet, there was no danger”. But you’re doing that with the textbook in hand. You are sitting several days in the future with far more information available to you than at the time of the incident.
A submarine, and I honestly can’t believe i have to say this more than 10 times by now. Is generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. As far as the submarine captain goes. What do you want him, personally, to do, that also does not put his submarine or his crew in potential danger.
Absolutely this.
The entire strikes are illegal as the United States is not in a state of war with Iran.
Besides, “I was just following orders” has never and will never be accepted as a justification.
It might be illegal under US law. I wouldn’t know. I’m not a US lawyer. But what I do know is that it’s not a war crime. And it doesn’t break any “international law”.
The international body that is supposed to look into these things would be the UN security counsel. At which both US and Russia are permanent members and both have veto powers. So good luck getting anything done there
There was a precedent in Nuremberg you should look into
Oh wow. Okay, any particular part I should direct my focus on that says its illegal to attack an enemy’s warship in international waters?
Or are you just throwing around some words to read somewhere thinking it sounds clever?
Yeah, the part about following orders not being a valid defense is a good start, my little war crimes defender.
And what does that have to do with this specific incident? Nothing.
So why is it a legal target. As pointed out, no state of war exists. So the boat wasn’t a legal target. But if we hand wave that away, not picking up the survivors is clearly against international law. And I can even hand wave the part about orders being legal, but I still want the names out there, I want the public to know that this captain left those men to die against every tradition of the navy and international laws/rules/guidelines. Public pressure can help ensure the next Captain stands up against such orders.
You seem to have some misconception of what constitutes a legal target and what doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if you are at war or not. Warships, are military targets. They are valid targets. You do not have to be in war to sink one. But it’s probably going to start one.
And no. It is not illegal for a submarine to remain submerged. Submarines are not expected to conduct rescue operations. They do have to do something. Notifying someone else as to where there might be survivors, is something.
You are only required to conduct a rescue operation if you think it is safe to do so. You are not required to rescue sailors if you believe it could put your ship in danger.
None of this means you can’t feel the way you do. That’s fine. You think the captain is a coward and scum for not helping them. Sure, I’m not trying to take that away. All I’m saying is, the order was not illegal. The act was not illegal, and the aftermath was also not illegal.
I’m really not sure why people are hyperfocusing on the one instance where the US didn’t commit a war crime. You have so many other things to pick from… why die on this hill? They bombed a God damn school for girls.
The article references the geneva convention as the document that requires rescuing the sailors. So that is where that part comes from. It is of cpurse unlikely to be as simply worded as that. So lets agree it may not be strictly speaking illegal. However, illegal is whatever the prosecutor decides to prosecute for and that the judge agrees is illegal. In some cases a jury too.
But let’s put that aside. My goal was to identify the person who was the last person to reasonably expect to reject the order. In this case the captain of the sub. Name and shame. Give people in that position in the future at least some reason to pause and think before doing such things. Just following orders doesn’t cut it at that level. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a moral one. We need to shine a light on those people, let them know we know what they did. Make them live with that.
Again. This wasn’t an illegal order. There’s nothing for a captain to interpret as illegal. They’re targeting a warship belonging to the enemy.
If a captain just blatantly refuse orders, because they have a moral problem with it, rather than a legal one, they’d be subjective to court martial. They could end up prison for a very long time. Or worse.
Everyone that has served in any country. Knows that you as a captain/pilot/sailor/infantry, mechanic, whatever. You don’t have all the information. You have to trust your superiors and their superiors that they know what they’re doing.
So unless you’re given a blatantly illegal order. You follow it. Because other people’s lives may very well depend on it. I don’t think the captain was the person that should reasonably reject the order. Partly because you have no idea what information that captain had available to them.
You do you. If you want to name and shame people you will do that regardless of what anyone else thinks. But the reasons you’ve laid out does not support your argument that the captain is the problem.
So I wasn’t talking about the strike as much as not aiding the sailors. Sinking the boat, while reprehensible, would be a hard order to defy. Rescuing the sailors until other help arrived though. That would be reasonable to do, even if ordered not to. Leaning on the Geneva convention as support may not save a person. But it would still be the honorable thing to do.
If the US had other ships nearby, closer than Sri Lankas ships, and still deliberately chose to not help the sailors in the water. That would be utterly reprehensible.
As for the submarine, I can understand why they did not want to surface.
They knew it was unarmed it was leaving an event that involved unarmed ships, an event the US backed out of and then had a sub attack a ship they knew to be unarmed.
Seizure would be arguably legal, sinking it is not.
I understand you feel strongly about what happened. But that is not going to change that it was a legal target in war.
There are lots of things that are legal, but still cowardly and shitty to do.
There’s no law that says you can’t rip off a giant fart outside a restaurants outdoor serving area. It would be legal. But incredibly shitty.
An unarmed boat is not a warship as per international law. They fly flags that state they are unarmed as this one was.
Quit equivocating.
It is still a military warship. Surely you don’t actually think countries can just put up an “unarmed flag” and expect their warships can safely make it across to a dry dock or for rearmament.
How do you KNOW it was unarmed? Because they had a flag up? Because they said so? Because India boarded the Iranian ship and conducted a thorough search of the entire interior? I’m genuinly curious as to how you are so confident it didn’t carry a single shell, rocket, torpedo or missile.
You cannot possibly think any nation at war would let an enemy warship sail by without consequence just because they claim they’re unarmed.
If Russia sailed a warship right outside Ukrainian waters with an “unarmed flag”. Do you think Ukraine would just let it be? Oh damn guys, they say it’s unarmed. Guess we have no choice but to let it hang around…
It’s a military target, it isn’t a warship. When deployed unarmed to naval exhibitions they are deployed as auxillary, it’s the same as training ships.
Because it was boarded and inspected to take part in a fleet week of sorts, yes.
You can when it’s beyond combat zones and flying flags signaling peaceful intention and being unarmed. There’s a proportionality issue when it comes to striking military targets and moreover there’s an obligation to rescue crew.
It wasn’t anywhere near Iran unless you are somehow under the impression sri lanka is adjacent to Iran. And Ukraine tends to abide by normal military conventions so yes if they knew it to be unarmed they would likely seize the ship and not sink it.
Iran:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#/media/File:Iran_(orth…
Sri lanka:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka#/media/File:Sri_L…
Location of sinking : …bbci.co.uk/…/10450900-17e7-11f1-b048-c9424b2cf5f…
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed. Seizing something isn’t always possible.
You can absolutely engage enemy military targets regardless if they are within “combat zone” or not. With the sole exception if they are within another nations border. That is something that would make it more complicated. But that wasn’t the case.
Naval vessels are not required to rescue sailors. They are requires to take all possible measures to redcue sailors. Which can include rescuing sailors. If possible. There is a huge difference. Sometimes it is not possible to conduct a rescue operation. For a plethora of reasons.
One being that submarines do not want to surface unless they have support of other vessels.
Another is that submarines are generally not equipped to conduct rescue operations. Nor equipped to handle POW’s
A third would be that submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
If they deploy all of them in the hopes that a few Iranian sailors might find them and climb aboard once they inflate at the surface. What are they themselves going to use in case of an emergancy?
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact. Seizing an unarmed ship is literally the original purpose of attack subs.
You can attack proportionally, sinking an unarmed ship that’s made no aggressive moves is not at all proportional.
Yes they are, and subs can release lifeboats while submerged. It’s an option for just such an occasion. We are not at total war, we’re not even legally at war we’re involved in special combat operations which are intended to be ao limited.
They had a strike group nearby, try again.
They’re absolutely equipped to take part in post action rescue operations, they train for it and everything.
Yes they absolutely do, you’re talking out your ass. Almost all subs will carry two or more rafts for surface operations and that’s ignoring the overstock of seie suits.
You’re contradicting yourself. You can’t say they don’t have X and then say what of they run out of X.
Seriously quit equivocating dude.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
That’s not what I found laughable.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it’s a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you’re wrong.
Yes they were, you’re talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran’s waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they’re not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It’s a war crime and you’re equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn’t even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you’re making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it’s too rescue the crew because we aren’t at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it’s gross.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
It is when it’s an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.
Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?
Also wrong but clearly so at least.
Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn’t have the unrep ability the US does unless you’re implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn’t even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it’s actions.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.
That’s equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.
That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.
Agreed, I didn’t say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.
What’s the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn’t a war is defending him?
You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That’s not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn’t approve it?
if that’s genuinly your belief, I’m lost for words.
You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country’s warship is an act of war.
The only reason Trump isn’t calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as “war”) is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.
“Special combat operations” laughable. It’s exactly what Russia claimed they’re doing in Ukraine. “Oh we’re not at war with Ukraine… it’s just a special military operation”.
you’re an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i’ve said is that it isn’t a war crime. and neither is what followed
you can think it’s shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that’s all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.
Bro the fact you’re taken to multiple personal attacks but can’t remember where or when is fairly telling.
That’s how it is legally defined in the United States like it or not that’s how it actually works.
It’s not a belief it’s the actual law.
An act of war and declaration of war are two separate things. Taking a head of state into custody is an act of war and yet we aren’t at war with them either.
Duh, that doesn’t change the fact that we are not at war.
Yeah no shit, two shitty nations using the same playbook doesn’t really change anything and Russian law allows Putin control over declaration of war, that simply isn’t how it works in the US.
You 100% are, and it 100% is a war crime and that is iirc the fifth personal attack on me.
It’s all of those things and a war crime.
You’ve proven my point but apparently don’t know you have. Though it is fairly amusing you insult my reading comprehension and quote that particular section without comprehending it.
Hold on, you’re complaining that I’ve repeatedly somehow insulted you personally by saying going along with Trumps notion that this isn’t a war is defending his stance that it isn’t a war.
Yet you started by saying I simping for hegseth, and that’s not a personal attack?
Yes. Declaration of war and an act of war are two different things. Very astute of you. But they both lead to the same thing. War.
You don’t have to declare war to start one. Or be in one. You can just as easily start one by committing an act of war. That’s why it’s called “an act of war”. It’s an action someone would take if they were at war with someone.
I know you don’t think the US is at war with Iran. But I say Bombing their military installations and sinking their navy is more than proof of the US being at war with Iran. And pretty much every single country would agree with that.
You seem to be offended by just about anything. I don’t think it’s a direct personal attack to say I think you’re a moron if you believe I’m defending hegseth after I’ve stated numerous times that I’m not, noting his actual war crime of bombing shipwrecked civilians outside of Venezuela and hoping he is brought to justice for it.
If that’s a belief you still retain then it is what it is. If not, you have nothing to be upset about.
Oh, and I comprehend what I quoted you perfectly. If you read it thoroughly you will understand that militaries can exercise a litany of ‘possible actions’ that does not constitute them personally sailing by and picking up survivors. As long as it’s a decision taken in “good faith”. Which is in itself up for some serious interpretation
Good luck. You’ll need it.
You’ve repeatedly insulted me, no one said it was all claiming I support Trump.
That was after you insulted me first boss, just reread the comments of you’re confused about chronology.
No they in fact do not, they can but that is not inevitable or obligate.
In this country it is legally not a war unless declared by Congress. Casus belli does not obligate the declaration of war.
Legally we aren’t. That’s not the only personal attack you’ve made either but you’re just repeating yourself at this point. Yes those are war crimes as well, it does not mean the US is at war, clearly.
It’s not a belief, it’s how the construction of the Constitution works.
You clearly do not.
No need for luck nor to condescend.
the whole thing about following illegal orders is complete bullshit and impossible for military personnel to follow… it’s just a pretence so the Murican military can claim moral superiority
Honestly, I don’t expect the rank and file members to make a stand. But a sub captain… I do. And from that person all the way up the chain that gave the order. I don’t expect this DOJ to do anything. So I just want names for now. And I want them public so those people can’t go anywhere without being known as the ones who failed to stop the illegal order.
Why Hegseth? He didn’t push the button, but some idiot to whom ordinary Americans would shout “thank you for your service.” “I’m just following orders” is not an excuse, many such people were shot by the Nuremberg Tribunal for war crimes they committed because someone ordered them to.
Both, both is good
The submarine commander didn’t do this unilaterally. He was clearly ordered to do so, and that order would have come from Hegseth or Trump.
Because responsibility starts with leadership. It’s a very simple concept that current leaders ignore and we pay the price for.
It’s called command climate. The messaging from those in charge has a direct bearing on how the troops behave. Hegseth has consistently advocated brutality and disregard for international law and human life.
No one was shot as a result of Nuremberg trials. And only, like, nine people were hanged as a result of them.
Like he said in a speech: “We kick the ones that are already down.”
I see no reason to fight fair, why put our troops at unnecessary risk?
I also can’t think of a reason why we wouldn’t capture their unarmed ship, or at least give them ample opportunity and “incentive” to surrender. Honestly, the greatest show of strength is the ability to show compassion and humanity to your enemy. Think of how much power it would project to capture a whole warship, hold the crew as PoWs, treat them well, and return them well fed and cared for?
Instead, we blew them up and left the survivors stranded in the ocean for other nations to assist.
During WW2, many Italian and German POWs were sent to America for internment, and treatment, if they were wounded. I have met a three separate couples where the POW fell in love with his nurse, and after he was sent home after the war, he came right back and married his American nurse.
Behaving compassionately toward your enemy is the best thing an Army can do to quell post-war problems. MAGA is too Sociopathic to understand that concept. They feel that the only strategy is to crush the enemy, then subjugate them mercilessly, because they are inherently cruel, and that’s their idea of fun. They don’t consider the danger in creating another generation of motivated terrorists.
My grandma cooks a very authentic red sauce, allegedly, my great grandfather was in charge of some POWs stateside in WWII, and one of them was a chef before the war, so he had that guy come over and teach my great grandma how to cook a red sauce, and the recipe has literally been passed down for generations at this point.
Before you ask… I have not been granted the recipe yet.
One way to not put your troops at unnecessary risk would be not to start unnecessary wars.
Yeah, that too, but we’re talking about the US… Unnecessary war is like the trademark move of the republican party.
Woke. being woke is why the US keeps losing, so stop being woke and start winning
I shit you not, this is how these morons actually think.
I expect this to be unpopular with the hive:
When you join a military, you take the risk that someone might shoot at you at some point.
It’s a warship, not a civilian ship, what’s the problem? I can’t think of a “better” target in a war than a warship.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/75bea75a-42b3-4604-9f31-4f1df7f04d31.jpeg">
Is that little knob on the bow for spraying lemonade at the thirsty? Are those boxes in the back for delivering free meals to underprivileged students?
Someone help me see your viewpoint as to why sinking this ship is an especially evil action getting as much attention as a literal girl’s school.
I have heard through (unsourced reddit comments keep in mind) that the US knew about the war games and was supposed to take place and pulled out last minute. So they knew that the ship was partaking and still blew it up. The US participated in the 2024 edition, so it seems like it was true.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_(naval_exercise)
I also don’t understand that would be a sticking point. It was in international waters when it was sank, so I assume it was returning home to get armed with shells, torpedoes, and missiles. Why wait for a warship to become an active threat before striking it?
It presumably had the option to either surrender itself to a neutral port, as another Iranian warship has done, or fly the white flag.
Because they knew it wasn’t a threat. They could have intercepted it, and the crew would likely have surrendered, and there would have been no senseless loss of life. It did not have that option as far as I can tell. It seems like Mr Social media content Hegseth wanted a video to share on socials to show how badass we are and opted to blow away innocents. That is fucked, and if you can’t see why, I can’t help you.
Submarines haven’t asked for surrenders in over a century. They stopped because ships that “should be unarmed” kept blowing them out if the water once they gave up stealth. Would you gamble your ship and crew on an Iranian warship following wargames rules to the T?
The ship was waiting to surrender to Sri Lanka I think. There was another one that had priority that did surrender while the one that was hit was next in line.
How about doing the minimum and reading the article?
Did that first, found the article filled with emotion and lacking explanation. Thanks for the coolguy snappy comment instead of explaining that view tho. It’s a warship, not a hospital boat. It’s designed to shoot missiles, shells, and torpedos.
Submarines haven’t surfaced to ask for surrenders since WW1. They stopped during, because asking for surrenders resulted in getting blown out of the water by ships that “should be” unarmed. If you were captain, would you gamble everyone on board your ship by giving up a submarine’s greatest weapon, stealth, on the assumption a warship belonging to a rules-flouting authoritarian regime is following the rules?
Your comment does multiple things at once.
You are asking why the outrage over this vs the school. Well, that’s a false dilemma. Nobody says the school bombing was A-OK.
You’re asserting that being in a country’s Navy makes it so that you accept the risk someone might shoot you. Well, nobody says it isn’t so. But that doesn’t make that loss of life A-OK. This is especially shocking given the brutal nature of a ship being torpedoed like that.
The United States has not declared war on Iran according to their own fucking constitution. They only make a bullshit self defense argument. But the ship was in an unrelated part of the world, in Shri Lanka, so literally unable to threaten anything. So the killing felt gratuitous, cold blooded, brutal, unnecessary. The US could have neutralized the ship in a more humane way, given them a chance to surrender, etc. Instead they chose this.
So, no, this isn’t more important than the bombing of the school, and yes it is a warship but it’s still brutal and shocking. Your scolding of people’s natural aversion to this massacre is just not helpful.
Your comment also does several things at once.
Still fails to tell why sinking a warship gets more comment than literally massacring protesters or literally bombing a school.
I was operating under the basic assumption we’re adults who agree war is evil, and people die in wars. War is never fucking “A-OK” as you describe it. 2a. War exists, war is inherently evil, because humans are humans. If you volunteer for war, and then don’t want to participate, surrender yourself to a neutral country.
WOAOWOOWWOWOW a nation didn’t actually do the political process of " I declare war"??? Grow up.
Throughout the full history of submarine warfare, warning “unarmed” ships they should surrender has resulted in submarines getting blown the fuck out of the water by “unarmed” ships.
How is this “brutal and shocking”? They could have sailed to a neutral port and surrendered to the neutral nation, as another Iranian ship just did.
Your statement that this gets more attention than killings of civilians is not as obviously true as you make it. This is the first thread on Lemmy I’ve seen for example specifically discussing the ship whereas I’ve seen multiple others discussing the school bombing. So I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about here.
About the other two, again I’m not sure where you’re getting at. You’re digging your heels on what exactly? That people should not be upset about this? My points 2 and 3 tried to describe some reasons why people might feel upset. Your point is what? “Fuck your feelings”? I mean ok, you can say that, but then what?
During the state of the union speech, Trump PROUDLY said that people are afraid to go fishing around Venezuela
This bastard killed hundreds of defenseless people and we are doing condemnation here
He should be hanged
These murderous pedophiles will do anything to distract from the Epstein files.
All of this is happening because Israel is blackmailing American Pedophiles into war.