Oh I see. No problem with what Trumps is doing now because “that is not legal”.
Whew! I am so fucking relieved. If Trump goes even more off his rocker and orders the military to bomb Canada because we posted a mean meme about him, I will take lots of comfort that it’s not legal to kill us.
Military law does not control what is or is not a war crime. This entire war is a war crime. Ipso facto, the torpedoing of this submarine… was a war crime.
And if you want to have a pissing match over who has more or less relevant military experience (as if that confers some absolute authority to make pronouncements on what is or isn’t a war crime?), we can do that, I suppose, but it won’t change that conclusion.
I’m sure that’s a big comfort to the dead Iranian sailors and their families, to say nothing of the half-dozen or so American dead/
The people who think that you arguing about its legality means you are defending Trump are acting like total fucking morons who should be ashamed of themselves.
Even though the Pit allows you to make stupid accusations, it doesn’t obligate you guys to, dumbasses. I know it’s an emotionally charged subject, but your aggression is so badly misplaced. I hope you don’t also go beating pets because Trump pissed you off
The accusation is:
That’s not an accusation that he is defending Trump (or Hegseth), it’s an act that he’s defending their atrocities. Which he is, with statements like this:
Despite acknowledging that many of the victims were likely conscripts with no choice in. The matter.
And on a personal note, I’m frankly tired of random veterans coming into military-themed threads and acting as if their service somehow gives them special insight into matters that they are really no more qualified to assess or judge than any civilian.
I mean, I’m a veteran too, but I am by no means an expert on humanitarian law or the law of armed conflict (though I’d wager that I have more education in it, as a lawyer and an officer who completed joint qualification level II, than most or all of them).
It’s highly likely that many of them were navy musicians. It’s quite typical to have band members on board for visits like this to other countries.
Whether conscript or volunteer, they’re still a combatant. From a legal standpoint, what’s the difference betrween killing a volunteer versus killing a conscript?
I am begging you to learn the fundamentals of literacy in the English language. It seems to be a continued barrier to your understanding.
Nobody needs to be a veteran to understand any of this, for fuck’s sake. I happened to be forced to sit through a number of military classes on the subject of how to conduct operations compatible with the laws of war, so that’s mostly where my knowledge comes from. But that’s not the only way to learn things! The text of the law is online, people can pick up books and read things, they can Google up actual war crimes cases to learn how they were adjudicated. Nobody needs to be a veteran to understand this, although any amount of training is superior to personal vibes.
Anybody is free to look up primary sources and form an argument that’s better than “this makes me angry and I hate Trump, so it’s probably a war crime.” Instead what we get is a bunch of nitwits who apparently think naval operations are to be conducted like a highway patrol DUI checkpoint. People are relying purely on an intuition that seems heavily influenced by civilian policing (when it’s not pure personal feeling), and it’s simply not applicable.
While talking about misinformation linked to the war in his latest video, Perun touched on the “unarmed” warship story and came to the same conclusion we did - the naval excercise the ship was at involved live fire drills, so it strains credulity to believe the ship was unarmed.
He also includes a screenshot of a YouTube video posted by Iranian media in February showing the Dena at the excercise. A comment reads:
In Britain there was an argument of this kind in 1982 about the sinking of an Argentinian warship, with prolonged accusations about what we discerned about its intentions, and when we discerned it, and which way it was travelling at the time. The MP Sir Tam Dalyell was prominent in his attacks on the government’s good faith.
Here are your words where you explain why Trump cannot attack my country:
No, because as I said, that is not legal . What you have described is not legal. Actually prosecuting it is thorny, but it’s a rogue president doing illegal things. He may never be held to account, I don’t know. But it’s not legal.
Trump and his minions do not give a tiny fuck if it’s “illegal”. It will happen anyway if his addled brain orders it. You’re correct nobody will be held to account.
All you have to say is “Yes, I have a problem with that.”
I am sorry that your illiteracy has such a crippling effect on your ability to participate in English-language discussions. I am addressing myself to the question of what is a war crime and what isn’t a war crime.
I will make an attempt (likely futile) to address what I think is the question hiding in your rants.
Since my “tone” seems mainly at issue here, I will say that I like Canada and I would strongly oppose any Trump attack upon it. In addition to being illegal it would be incredibly stupid as well as an unconscionable betrayal of a country that is (or was) a stalwart ally. America should fall to its knees and beg forgiveness for this idiocy, from Canada, the world, and its own citizens.
The only thing that can save any of us is if the global economy puts enough pain on Americans to coerce a change in our political leadership. As an American, this is hard to root for, because while I naturally don’t want to experience economic suffering for political decisions that I opposed, in reality the suffering will probably visit America last, and less severely, than any other country.
Hopefully that clears things up. If not, you’re on your own.
I will make an attempt (likely futile) to explain to you that if you write like an asshole, and spew insults like an asshole, then it’s very possible that people will perceive that you’re an asshole, and treat you this way.
This probably comes as a surprise to you, and may explain why many people treat you like you’re an asshole.
You’re welcome.
Nobody but you has said anything about “war crime” for at least two days. You made your point. Stop being a dick.
You keep bringing up these straw man arguments, quoting things that nobody ever said, in order to mock them. Meanwhile, when given actual cites that contradict your arguments, you conveniently ignore them.
To recap: I gave you a cite where some (not all) experts in international law believe that the sinking of the Dena was a war crime because such aggression is only legal if Congress has declared a state of war, which Congress has not done. This gives this aggression exactly the same level of legal justification as Trump’s minions blowing up civilian boats off the coast of Venezuela, namely none whatsoever. You had no response.
I also pointed out that even if one accepts that the sinking of the Dena was legal, under the Second Geneva Convention an attacker has an obligation to rescue surviving victims if at all possible. Again, there is expert support for this. All the sub had to do to save lives was hold the survivors for a very short time until rescue vessels arrived. They did nothing, while Hegseth celebrated the carnage. Again, you had no response to this.
And no one has said that military engagement should be exactly like civilian policing. This is another ridiculous straw man. What I said was in response to your assertion that it makes no difference if the school bombing was intentional or not. I pointed out that there’s a long-established principle in law distinguishing between murder, manslaughter, and reckless endangerment. When you then say that (quote): “I’m almost the only person in this thread who understands that there’s a difference between civil law and military law”, I pointed out that the UCMJ makes exactly that same distinction, and gave you a cite. Again, no response from you. Crickets.
The combination of straw man arguments and ignoring cited information that that you don’t like makes one wonder if you’re arguing in good faith.
US law does not affect the perspective of international law. This is a war, full stop.
The American politicians who chose to start the war may be (well, IMHO, they pretty clearly ARE) in violation of international law in choosing to start the war. That is a matter of jus ad bellum.
Soldiers who engage in acts of war are NOT necessarily breaking a law of war by being soldiers. That is jus in bello. Attacking an enemy is a normal part of war. Making another country an enemy can be a crime, while acting as a soldier in that war is not a crime.
There is a reason they didn’t round up surviving German and Japanese sub commanders and hang them all. They were acting in accordance with the law jus in bello.
From the perspective of the US, it is not, as it’s not been authorized by Congress. From the perspective of international law, it also is not, as it’s neither an act of self-defense nor authorized by the UN Security Council. So it’s an act of unprovoked hostility.
As it’s in violation of the UN Charter, all the violence being perpetrated including the sinking of the Dena are all pretty obviously illegal under international law.
ISTM that this relates only to the question of who is ultimately accountable for atrocities. At the very least, Trump, Hegseth, and perhaps others along the chain of command, much as high-ranking Nazi officers were held accountable.
And you also wrote this:
Which totally mischaracterizes the scene and the captain’s actions.
Because when the captain sees survivors jumping into the water after the second attack, he curses and laments the fact that the enemy (i.e. the British) had had many hours to rescue the crew members aboard the stricken ship and had neglected to do so.
The reason he torpedoed the stricken ship again was to deny the enemy the asset which could presumably be subsequently towed to port and repaired. He made the assumption that it had been abandoned. He didn’t realize that there were crew members still onboard.
And when the survivors started swimming toward the U-boat, he ordered it to back away because a submarine has no ability to take POWs onboard.
The scene is indeed horrifying in that it illustrates the brutality of war, but not the “stark evil of the Nazi regime.” The U-boat captain did nothing wrong according to the laws of war.
The one most at fault would be the Allied commander of the convoy that abandoned the crew on the stricken ship, but it’s hard to fault him as well. He might have made the pragmatic decision to abandon the ship and crew in order to save the remaining ships in the task force when there is an enemy U-boat in the area (and possibly others, since they often hunted in “wolf packs”).
Well, that part is easy when it comes to submarines: it’s simply not possible.
As I noted in my previous post with respect to the scene in Das Boot, a submarine has no ability to rescue or take prisoners of war onboard (POWs). This is even more true for modern nuclear submarines when compared to WWII subs (which spent most of their time on the surface). Modern submarines with teardrop-shaped hulls handle terribly on the surface in the open ocean. Trying to retrieve survivors would be an exercise in futility, even if they had room on board for POWs (which they don’t).
Not to mention the fact that modern nuclear submarines don’t have deck guns and are essentially defenseless sitting ducks on the surface.