The submarine is the threat in the ultimatum, not the facilitator of the conditions if accepted. You keep trying to pretend that single submarine was the only US asset available to monitor, communicate with, or engage that vessel. If that’s true, I want to know what the Pentagon has been spending trillions of dollars on.
You mean all those assets in and around the Persian Gulf 2000 miles away from Sri Lanka? Or perhaps even further in the South China Sea?
It’s not a pretense, it’s a logical conclusion based on the events that have unfolded, knowledge of the US Navy’s order of battle, and the information that is publicly available. If you have evidence to refute that conclusion I’d love to see it, but you seem to be basing your accusation of pretense on the assumption that our military has assets in every corner of the globe ready at a moment’s notice to locate and go deliver an ultimatum to a 300 ft frigate in the open ocean.
They obviously transmitted the video of the torpedo hitting the IRIS Dena and the subsequent sinking. We saw it, there are links to that action in this very thread. That is not how I understand a “receive-only system”.
We are not as dumb as you seems to imply. But some people have misgivings that you do not seem to get at all. Frodo expressed my feelings very well in Post 158.
That is a valid point, so clearly transmissions were made after the attack. My guess is that some type of satellite data connection was used, but it’s been over 30 years since I have been on a submarine so it’s not my area of expertise.
I certainly wasn’t implying that anyone is dumb. I was expressing frustration at saying the same thing over and over and having it ignored. This is made more frustrating because I know how intelligent the people here are. And I did acknowledge those misgivings here: About that torpedoed Iranian warship - #132 by Thumper668. I just didn’t express an opinion on them.
No, it is not legal for the US to destroy any arbitrary ship for any arbitrary reason. That is not where we are now. I am addressing the question of whether it is a war crime, and whether this is customary to the conduct of war. I am not addressing moving targets like what you think the rest of the world thinks. Speaking of moving targets:
Already addressed. The US has no idea how to operate, resupply, or maintain such a ship, and has plenty of its own. As far as whether the world might hate us less, that ship has already sunk, so to speak.
I trust that by now my point has landed decisively, given that we’re off “this was a war crime” and are moving the target to things like “it wasn’t very nice” and “we could’ve captured them humanely if we tried harder” and “this is a better way to win a war.” This is all Iraq 2004 thinking. If you don’t want to be hated, then you had no business starting a war in the first place. Once the war is started, then it operates under that set of rules. You cannot footsie around and curry favor with the victimized by waging a kinder and gentler war. Nobody buys it.
I would just guide you all thus:
- If you believe that a successful war crimes case will help the anti-Trump cause in some way, there are plenty of them already published in the news, and no doubt worse ones are on the way. Focus your efforts on the ones that have legs, not just the spectacular ones.
- Spare a moment to reflect on exactly what Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy is, what they’ve done over the past decades, the fact that they are openly targeting civilian residences and shipping right now, and ask yourself how much sense it really makes to clutch your pearls over extending the principles of fair play to a well-documented international terrorist organization.
Obsessing over this ship sinking is dumb. You should kick up more of a stink about the bombing of a girls’ school or any of the worse Trump war crimes that will be coming out in the next days or weaks. But I am begging you to just let the fucking boat go, and rethink your sympathies for the military officers of the IRGC, a group that is internationally agreed to be a terrorist organization that’s currently doing its level best to kill civilians. You don’t have to love Trump to realize this! You can be an adult and resist binary thinking!
So, I honestly don’t buy the claim that the ship was unarmed. I see that snopes looked into it already and that link has already been shared, but here it is again in case anyone missed it.
It just seems utterly implausible. I have participated in many multinational exercises, and the idea that one would be held—even if it’s really just a glorified parade of ships—with the requirement that all participating warships be completely devoid of ammunition is absurd. No Navy would send its ships to participate in such an event.
I simply do not buy it. I think the former foreign secretary (not even current former secretary, much less someone involved with defense) was showing his own ignorance, talking out of his ass.
That said, I think the question of armaments is really moot. It does not matter if the ship was capable of defending itself or not. The fact of the matter is, this entire war is a war crime.
Point of order. Not super *important, but since we’re trying to educate our fellow posters here, I must note that there is an Iranian Navy which is distinct from the IRGCN. I strongly suspect that this ship was part of the Iranian Navy, not the IRGCN (which is more focused on the littorals, not open ocean operations).
*Actually, since you’re accusing the victims of this sinking of being straight up terrorists by virtue of their supposed membership in the IRGCN, I suppose it is important. No they weren’t. Shame on you for not being able to know the difference, frankly.
“Take a minor enemy asset off the board as quickly as possible” sounds like a strategy for a video game. How does the cold-blooded murder of around 100 Iranian sailors figure into your calculus – human beings who all had family back home, and many undoubtedly had wives and children? Only around 30 were rescued, and many of those probably had serious injuries. These actions are being cheered on by a thoroughly corrupt and murderous regime and I’d classify this sinking as a war crime. So was the bombing of the school that killed some 100 children.
According to the murderous Orange Doofus, this is not a war, it’s a “military operation”. Apparently one with no stated goal or purpose except to wreak death and havoc. Trump and Hegseth are both monumentally stupid and this is what you get from monumentally stupid people.
We have been through the question of “is this a war” several times, and this board’s position swings freely between the poles of “yes” and “no” depending on what argumentive advantage can be had.
When we’re discussing whether Trump has irrevocably plunged the US into a foolish military action with no real exit, without getting Congressional approval, then we all agree that it’s definitely a war.
When we’re observing that the Dena sinking is only a crime if we’re not at war, then suddenly we notice it’s not a war, because the Trump administration never declared war and resists stating it openly (except for the old man itself, who can’t seem to keep his own story straight).
I think we should all get on the same page that it is a war, and yes, it’s an illegal war of an aggression (which is a war crime), and learn to talk coherently about exactly what that means.
Thank you for educating me. I am able to take on new information and admit error, unlike most participants in this thread. I will take care not to categorize Dena in the wrong branch of service under the government of Iran, a state sponsor of terror.
I will say I also don’t think this distinction really amounts to much, given that Iran itself is a state sponsor of terror, and it will not be sidelining the Iranian Navy from its efforts going forward. So the whole “poor innocent frigate far from home” posture continues to be patent bullshit.
How many of the victims do you suppose were conscripts?
I would guess probably all of them, apart from the officers?
What it means in my estimation is that if this war (or whatever you want to call it) is illegal – and it is – then individual acts of aggression and murder carried out in its course are also illegal and criminal.
Post 164.
Post 165. I rest my case. We are in two camps talking past each other.
Those were two different posters, to make things clear.
Just to make an obvious point very clear: I do not harbour any sympathies at all for the Iranian regime. But
The dumb (he!) thing is that we seem to agree on the important thing, as per Post 168:
Yeah, I’m not in a “camp”, and if you are going to put words in my mouth while quoting someone else it isn’t worth my time to answer for it.
Please accept my apologies. Both you and HMS_Irruncible write with knowledge of facts and experience in military matters. If I put you in a camp together it is because you argue in the same direction, with similar arguments. Many valid points, but we are still talking past each other.
That is a big part of why I have avoided expressing my opinions. I appreciate your apology, but honestly I’m not sure I can accept it. You can’t complain about “talking past each other” and hold me responsible for someone else’s words.
It’s OK, this is the Pit after all.
That’s one type of moral reasoning, sure, but it’s not what’s been established by law or judicial precedent. The planning and ordering of a war of aggression is a crime. This has nothing to do with whether the conduct of any particular military action was criminal.
Even in a fantasy world where the US didn’t have its thumb on the scales of international war crimes proceedings, the sinking of Dena would not even be indictable, much less convictable.
Would I have done it differently? It’s poor form to second-guess a command decision where I don’t have all the information they had, plus me being an Army guy and not a Navy guy. But I would not have torpedoed the boat with all hands aboard simply because it makes for a badass spectacle. I’d have detained the crew, sunk the ship, and held the crew for whatever military advantage could be gained, whether that’s intelligence, or prisoner swap, or just keeping a trained crew out of the fight.
That’s how I’d have commanded it, but again, it’s not a war crime to not do things my way.
I don’t disagree, but then it raises the question again of why to focus on this incident over any of the others.
Well, that’s what this particular thread happens to be about. If it was about the school bombing, I’d be making a similar observation about criminality.