716
Iranian warship sunk by the US was sailing home after taking part in an exhibition hosted by India (apnews.com)
submitted 6 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
162 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 112 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (7 children)

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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 118 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 6 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 56 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    You assume they wanted the ship or prisoners more than the death and suffering

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -42 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 32 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

    Deeper Dumber 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -31 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    Putting aside your other bullshit, you answered the question yourself then. They did not capture it because it did not surrender.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

    No I meant moral here. The context is that law codifies an ethical standard and I'm not necessarily arguing the standard should be different, just that someone may personally have a different one (which would be their personal ethical standard). Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

    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.

    No, the former (illegality) follows from the latter (lacking legal justification). There is no jus ad bellum under international law here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 6 months ago* (1 child)

    No I meant moral here.

    Ok. But, I care about internet strangers morals about as much as I care what their favourite icecream is. It has no relevance to anything.

    Ethics in general is not universal either of course, there are legal systems and thus codes of ethics that take issue with not wearing a Hijab.

    I don't think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t think ethics have anything to do with law. Ethics is an attempt to create something like objective morals by evaluating how much objective good or harm an action causes. Of course, it is far from universal since it depends how you evaluate seriousness of a harm and good. E.g. is it better to kill one person and save 3. But you would have a hard time creating an ethics system where wearing a Hijab was unethical, since it pretty much does not affect anyone else.

    It is true that law and ethics are distinct (I did not argue otherwise), but they do overlap. Laws often reflect ethical principles even if they’re not identical. Ethics isn’t just about calculating harm and benefit; different theories (like deontology or virtue ethics) focus on duties or character rather than consequences. So while wearing a hijab probably wouldn’t be considered harmful in most ethical systems, that’s more a reflection of the framework than an absolute rule.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 6 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •