345
Piracy for thee unless aligned with BBC
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2026
345 points (98.6% liked)
Inventing Reality
587 readers
123 users here now
When the media decides who you are rooting for.
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
Firstly, I absolutely hate that the US gets a free pass on everything and im sick of leaders refusing to blame Trump for this shit show for fear of reprisal.
That said, I genuinely feel like piracy is a more apt description of the Somalia's behavior, where it isn't really for the US.
Are the Somalis acting on government orders?
Is there any question that their behavior is illegal?
Is the primary motivation of those boarding the boat their own self enrichment?
I would very much like to see Trump held accountable for this shit show but I think this particular angle is pretty thin.
Yes, the Somalis are working under the government's orders, the government issued a decree preventing Israeli ships from crossing their waters, because they are supporting somali separatists in "somali land" , so its not piracy, its law.
Of the two ships "seized" in April, neither were Israeli and the oil tanker that was "seized", was actually heading to Mogadishu.
Why would the Somali government seize a vessel that was headed to them?
then it went against a different Somali law, look into it more before spreading false claims
You're the one that said it!
Gaslight much?
Oh, I see, this is .ML where facts don't matter and the U.S. is always worse than everyone.
That's just facts though lol
I said it, so you look it up
You can't expect me to do everything for you, can you?
The US has zero right to hijack any Iranian ship you are simply adding arbitrary conditions to make it seem like there is a difference between the two.
The only valid point they made is the "government orders" thing. If you copied the somali headline it would be "US pirates hijack..." which isnt clear on if it was civilians or the government that did the hijacking. But yes "boards" is much too passive. "US military hijacks" would be a accurate.
This is very obviously an argument of semantics.
These countries are at war, even if the US doesn't want to admit that. In a theatre of war combatants "board" ships and "comandeer" them.
Nothing stopping you calling it hijacking if thats your thing but its very obviously a heavy handed attempt at emotive language. It identifies you as a pariah rather than changing the perception of the US navy's behavior.
Yes that's literally the point of this com
So emotive language is okay when Somalis do it? Or not okay when so called "state" actors do it on the other side of the planet?
The act is the same and that's what actually matters. A boat is taken against the will of its crew without any self-defense motive.