The US Torpedoed an Unarmed Ship. Who Are the Good Guys Again? | The Walrus
In the early hours of March 4, 2026, in international waters off the coast of Galle, Sri Lanka, the USS Charlotte, a Los Angeles–class nuclear-powered attack submarine, closed in on the IRIS Dena, a new Iranian Moudge-class frigate.
Submerged, the Charlotte fired a heavyweight, acoustic-homing torpedo at the hull of the Dena. It missed. It fired another. It connected. The periscope footage of the attack was released by the United States Department of War. It shows the shockwave of the torpedo fracturing the Dena’s hull and sending its helicopter flight deck metres into the air.
Within seconds, what was left of the Dena was plummeting to the depths of the Indian Ocean, carrying at least sixty of its crew of 180 to their deaths.
Some moments later, an email was sent from US Indo-Pacific Command to Sri Lanka’s maritime rescue agency. Twenty miles from Galle’s coast, a ship is in distress. Sri Lanka immediately engaged a search and rescue effort that included its air force and navy. The surface of the sea contained clues that a vessel had been attacked and had likely been sunk. But it was not clear whether the attack had come from above or below. They were able to rescue thirty-two sailors, and recover the bodies of eighty-seven others, many of whom had mysteriously broken legs.
The Charlotte had long vanished like an apparition beneath the waves.
This was on the fifth day of the US–Israeli war on Iran, 2,000 nautical miles from the immediate conflict zone.
https://thewalrus.ca/the-us-torpedoed-an-unarmed-ship-who-are-the-good-guys-again/Open linkView original on sh.itjust.works
The US has been the main villain ever since they inherited the role from the British. None of this is surprising if you've been paying attention.
The 40k universe is clearly inspired by real-world politics. There are only bad guys, villains, and monsters. Nobody has the moral high ground in this mess.
"There is no such thing as innocence; only degrees of guilt."
Oh that’s a nice one. Where did you steal that from?
It's from 40k. Specifically I think it's the librarians from the Dawn of War games.
piefed.social/u/[email protected] has it right, i believe - but i'm ashamed to admit that i only know that because i had to look it up after originally hearing it from ... a fanfic, of all things.
So I have stolen what was already stolen! The writer of said fic was making a direct WH40k reference
(the fanfic in question is "Shinji and Warhammer 40K" and i cannot possibly describe the appeal of it more adequately than TV Tropes did.)
"Everyone is guilty in MegaCity-1. We're here to decide how much they are".
Centrist, politically relativist nerds unite; incidentally, relativism is a useful cope if you are one of the baddies.
We bombed only seven hospitals, whereas those guys bombed eight. They are clearly the worst, while we are the good guys, relatively speaking.
one side (the americans and their zionist allies) are perpetrating obvious genocide and threatening atrocities to the rest of the world, while the people in Iran are defending themselves; Man why is morality so difficult!?
Morality DLC was too expensive... Well, actually cheaper than the Ethnic Cleansing DLC, Dictatorship DLC or Warmongering DLC etc. So many to choose from, so obviously American got all of them, but ran out of money just before clicking buy on the Morality DLC. Oh well…
Anyway, Imperialism DLC just got updated, so maybe it’s about time to finally try that out.
They already tried the imperialism expansion; it ended up in a lot of dead nazis. I am eager to see the imperialist and nazis screaming and burning once again.
Ah yes, if only we’d let moral absolutists like you take the wheel, we’d finally have a world where every conflict is solved by pointing at the other side and yelling "No, you’re the baddie!"
Heaven forbid anyone try to classify things at a level above a kindergarten playground.
If anything, you're the one closer to being a moral absolutist. Iran does some bad things, but they're also at war with genocidal nazi pedophiles who want to destroy their country. You equivocate the two so that you don't have to feel uncomfortable.
Nowhere in that comment was I equivocating the two. It's not like the only two options are "USA bad, Iran good" or "USA bad, Iran bad". That's just a false dichotomy and more of the kind of black and white thinking I was criticizing. I also don't have to find ways to not feel uncomfortable about it simply because I am not an American.
USA is bad, Iran's kinda good. I admire their work with regards to ballistic missiles and drones, and grand strategy
thank you for making a perfect example of what a nazi would say! Can you say that again while goose stepping doing the roman salute and threatening the destruction of a whole civilization? Your type of people will be remembered as the ghouls that were doing defense for the mass murderers that are set to wreck the earth and that stain will never come off.
Yes, Nazis famously made nuanced moral judgements and never sought to demonize or thought certain groups were unequivocally bad at all. LMFAO.
They also killed a lot of innocent civilians and they were experts at handwaving those murders.
I don't know about that. I think they were pretty unapologetic about and certainly provided (bad but clear) ideological reasons for all the murdering they did, even making them official government projects. Don't remember reading much about handwaving except in the context of certain types of salutes.
I hate this comment.
Hey, we were happy dicking around in our own backyard for the first 150 years or so. We even attacked ourselves, we were so bored.
Then you people asked us to join WW1, and we got a taste of World Domination, and we loved it. So, y'know, you started it.
We're Frankenstein's Monster, and you let us loose.
/S, just kidding, America sucks, we know it. A lot of us want to do better, and we're hoping for a different future. We're at a crossroads, things are going to be very different in the future. I just hope it's our difference that prevails, and not MAGAs.
Spain has something to say about that. Cuba, Philippines, ... And Hawaii has also something to say.
The only one thinking the US are the good guys it's the US.
As of right now, you're no better... scratch that, you are actually worse than Putin.
Now that the United States is trying to do a Russian Ukraine upon Iran...
yyyyeah there is no moral highground anymore.
just an immoral crater filled with mud and viscera.
No state is moral. People are (or can be) moral.
honestly TRUUUUUUE!!
This is the case with pretty much all collective entities, they're all cut from the same cloth:
businesses, sports teams, fandoms, private clubs, political parties - they're all manifestations of tribal instinct and one of its """features""" (which, in this very synthetic habitat we've created for ourselves can become quite maladaptive if not toxic) is the displacement of personal accountability.
I'm saying, yes, groups are not moral but people can be moral - and I am hypothesizing THAT is why.
Parallel processing has enabled humans to do absolutely incredible things.
But it has also enabled humans to do truly heinous things too.
Bystander effect, "just following orders", toeing the party line, passing the buck, riding the bandwagon... I think it's not enough to teach people that only people themselves are capable of making moral judgments, but that we absolutely should also teach people that abstract gestalt entities that we become part of, that we allow to subsume us, are not.
Even the ones that aren't outright evil are only so by the individual decisions of the people it comprises--through either luck or mindfulness--steering it away from brutal shortcuts that spend others' lives for the sake of its own perpetuation.
It's kind of ironic though that the people who decry "groupthink" the loudest are the ones that seem to be doing it the most. I'd sure like to think that we'll learn to do a better job of identifying that blindspot (which such distributed collective entities exploit to enhance their own survival odds) and countering it, then teaching the next generations to look for it and counter it too.
... if we'll even be around to see any generations that may exist after us.
Oh I don't know. I think the Israelis are convinced they're the good guys.
The USA is bad but it's nowhere near russian level of bad. You are, however, moving in that direction at a rapid pace. It does help that American president sees russia as a role model.
Trying to paint either nation as "less bad" is incredibly naive. Both have murdered millions.
And the US has, this year, kidnapped a head of state, started a war and is also trying to starve another country. Not to mention how they are treating its own citizens and how are they giving all they need to Israhell so they can keep going with their genocide.
It's not naive, it's absolutely essential that one is able to assess differences even between two bad actors. What I would suggest is naive is to deny this. Coincidentally such thinking also played a part in electing Trump instead of Kamala because people suggested there was no difference.
Yet, no such distinction can be made between Russia and Magastan. If anything, Russia has done more killing internally, and the US have murdered more people abroad. Telling yourself one of them is less bad is - as stated - incredibly naive.
What world do you live in!?
I don't claim that know who the good guys are, but the US and specifically the military are definitely the baddies.
I disagree with you only on one point; "and specifically the military".
Apologies for being blunt, but this is a coward's logic. I'm not seeing that to attack you personally, but because far, far too many of us are guilty of this specific act of moral cowardice, and it needs to be called out now often.
A military acts on the will of a government. A government rules by the consent of the people (yes, even authoritarian governments; democracy is just a system for assigning that consent peacefully, fairly, and with minimal bloodshed).
With vanishingly few exceptions throughout history, militaries are not rogue agents acting on their own devices. They are our will made manifest. A soldier is a bullet fired from a gun. We take aim and pull the trigger. A soldier can do their best to act ethically and responsibly, but ultimately war is a scenario where no good outcomes can ever occur. Only degrees of terrible.
A soldier chooses to accept the responsibility of living and enacting that terror on our behalf because ultimately someone has to. War is sometimes inevitable and necessary. We do not categorically refer to the soldiers fighting for Ukraine's defence as monsters even though most of them - especially those serving before the war, those whose bravery and skill ground the Russian invasion to a halt in those vital early hours - serve for the same panoply of reasons that any other soldier does. Many of those reasons are simple, or selfish, or thoughtless, but the reasons why they chose to shoulder that responsibility didn't change the outcome.
It's easy to blame the military, because it abrogates the collective shame of what war actually is; an extension of politics. I know plenty of soldiers who are some of the most anti-war people you'll ever meet, because they understand what war costs, in a way the average civilian never will.
When war kills people, when war results in atrocities, when war is a nightmare of death and carnage and suffering, that responsibility is collective. It belongs to a people, not just a military.
Trump's war in Iran is America's war in Iran. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea, and so many others.
As Hawkeye says, "There are no innocent bystanders in hell, but war is chock full of them... In fact, aside from a few of the brass, almost everyone involved is an innocent bystander."
America is NOT acting on the will of the people. It has been totally stolen from the citizens, and neither side is doing what the people want. MAGA approval rates are abysmal, but so are Democratic approval rates. NOBODY is happy about it.
Understand that we are a nation under siege. MAGA stole the 2024 election with election fraud, and the Dems let them off the hook, and now we're dealing with the consequences. The majority did not want this, and now even many of them are leaving.
There is a national seething happening, just under the surface, and barely in control. MAGA tries to deny the Midterm Bloodbath, it will break loose.
I'm aware. But I didn't actually say that, did I?
If you refer back to my previous comment, you'll see that my exact statement was "A military acts on the will of a government. A government rules by the consent of the people." There's a subtle, but important distinction there. America's actions in Iran do not necessarily reflect the will (read; desires, intentions) of the American people. But it is, none the less, being done by a government that is operating with the consent of those same people. And that will continue to be the case until the people choose - by one means or another - to withdraw that consent.
These sailors signed up to fight for the Iranian regime. Regardless of what you think of who did it and how: these were baddies.
America and Israel are the common enemies of humanity
Add Russia to that
China and North Korea too while at it, please?
Iran goes on that list as well.
Absolutely, and probably a few more countries still
Yeah, they’re not attacking anyone at the moment. Let’s hope they don’t join the club soon
Hegseth and trump playing with lethal toys like a sociopath torturing animals.
A non-hostile ship being targeted because “Just do it and see what happens. “
And the biggest stupidity is having an easy target to seize, as a ship from a nation they are at war, they chose to sink it committing a war crime.
I want to put this very recognizable meme on lawn signs (like the plastic political candidate ones) and hand them out and put them everywhere.
Mark my words, by the end of Trump's term the United States is going to have no allies left in the entire world.
Hell, we barely have any left as it is now.
comment Africa comment in articles in the WSJ saying the US has only "fair weather allies" and it's good they show how useless they are now so the US can discard them.
exactly 0 self awareness.
If it was unarmed they could have effortlessly captured it. Imo this is just going to crystallize US opposition.
The US has rarely been "the good guys", and even then mostly by accident.
I don't get why the article keeps saying the military frigate was "unarmed"?
It was on a training mission and was heading home. With no weapons on board. We are cowards.
This entire war is illegal, but articles like this just grind my gears.
Attacking a war ship on a training run is like destroying airplanes on the ground, or bombing infantry barracks where soldiers are sleeping. It isn't a war crime, or even out of the ordinary in a war.
And calling the sub crew cowards doesn't even make sense.
The frigate would have been just as helpless against the sub if it had been carrying its usual armament.
I guess I'm just allergic to dishonest propaganda, no matter from which side.
Also, fuck Trump, his administration, and every single US service member going along with this. I hope they get humiliated and are forced to pull out with their tails between their legs before they "accidentally" kill more school children, or deliberately destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure (an actual war crime).
You are in serious need of education. This was an international naval exercise, where participants show up unarmed to not endanger any other participants and as a show of good will. This is basically a diplomatic gesture. Attacking such a ship is among the most cowardly things any military can do. So exactly what you would expect from the cowards of Magastan.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine started as a military exercise. Just because a military unit is on an "exercise", it does not mean it is not combat capable, or a valid military target.
Try a mirror.
There's plenty of that to be found on Lemmy tho
Yes, and the reactions to this post make me seriously consider leaving this place.
For me it's the exact opposite. I wouldn't know where else to observe these people, if not here?
And if it gets too frustrating I just close the app
Yeah, lemmy is a bit of a cespool.
Wow you're soft.
an attack on an unarmed vessel during a ceremonial voyage 2000 miles from the illegal war.... yeah no. Just another war crime to add to the pile.
So it has no weapons on board, it was just on a training mission. Cool.
But it's still a warship and two countries are at war. I guess you're saying the us should wait for it to make its way to port, fill up on ammo, take on its full crew compliment and then sink it as it leaves port?
Is that better?
Oh of course, the manly thing to do would be to wait for it get back to port get munitions and then shoot it
Let's put aside the stupidity of the idea that they should have allowed it to re-arm first and risk US lives for no reason.
The training mission had a live fire component, so the ship was definitely armed during a portion of the excersise. Unless they ran out of ammo or something weird happened, it was armed.
From the actual article. Which you could have read. It's not even paywalled, you just didn't want to take the time.
And yet the article cites no source for this and as far as I can tell, there is no official source excluding Iran. Only the same BS that ammo is usually not carried during excersises which obviously does not apply to live-fire excersises, which Milan 2026 was.
So unless you are suggesting we should be trusting what Iran says, I revert back to there is a good chance it had some ammo.
More importantly, what does it matter? The US military wouldn't have known for sure whether the ship had ammo or not and no reason to check. Even if it did not have ammo at the time, it would just re-arm in Iran. It was a legitimate target regardless, just like a bomber returning home after dropping bombs is a legitimate target, even if it does not carry bombs at that time. If you let it go, it will pick up more bombs and bomb you again.
PS: No idea why people feel the need to make shit up to paint the US in a bad picture. You want evidence of a US warcrime?
There it is. Just making that statement is a violation of the Geneva conventions. This is because it discourages surrendering, by suggesting surrenders will not be accepted/treated well, which in turn results in more deaths than necessary.
Unfortunately what is allowed in war is still pretty brutal. This was a warship and it would be a legitimate target from the moment the war started, without exception.
Let's focus on the actual war crimes, like the Pentagon redefining "military target" to include destroying energy, food, and fresh water infrastructure because soldiers need to drink water too... Hitting those targets would still be a war crime, the Pentagon is not the arbiter of what is and isn't a military target.
The thing is, the side that perpetrated this action is still denying that this is an actual war. In such a case, is this a legitimate target?
They aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't a war.
This was a ship that was participating in war games with other nations and had no armaments on it. So the US fired on and sank an unarmed ship.
Yes, that is technically true. It is also completely legal. For reference it is also legal to shoot an enemy soldier in the back as they run away. It is legal to shoot an enemy soldier in any case except where they are clearly trying to surrender, including if they are just laying there unconscious.
The rules of war allow for far more than people realize. And Again, I'm not trying to let them off the hook. There's real questions about this entire thing being a war crime and about their targeting of bombs.
While the war in Iran should not be happening remember that at Rimpac they were doing live fire excercises and not US and Iranian ships attended, this means that while tragic the ship was not unarmed. I keep seeing some factual errors repeated to try and make things sound worse than they are leading to easy dismissal of arguments due to factual errors and complete dismissal of the point.
But it was wicked cool, and we did that, so it's cool. - Hegseth
The US have never been 'the good guys'.
Nobody this time. Especially those holding absolute power.
American Fascists
Scary Muslims
Well, I don't want to align with the fascists. But also I do kinda agree with them on the scariness of Muslims.
I guess I'll do the Radical Centrist power move and say "Both Sides are Wrong".
We are. Because we say so. Now the other guy, wooboy what a bad guy!
US are not the good guys since WWII.
Since ever.
America was leaning towards the Nazis before Pearl Harbor.
America was sharply divided between socialism and fascism in the run up to the collapse of the Russian Empire and emergence of the Soviet Union. Consequently, American leftists saw a ray of sunlight in the path Lenin took to revolutionizing the Russian socio-economic system. At the same time, American corporationists saw the USSR as an opportunity to describe American Leftism as a Foreign Invasion.
The adoption of European political theories and figureheads on the left triggered the hysterical anti-immigration reflexes on the right, polarizing and galvanizing the general public which had already grown deeply anti-European in the wake of the First World War.
This culminated in the Palmer Raids of 1919, split the union movement going into the Roaring Twenties, and - in a hat trick of reactionary revisionism - managed to unify Dixiecrat bigots, big money Industrialists, and evangelical Christians (both Protestant AND Catholic) into a single suffocating mono-party that would dominate American politics for the next twelve years.
The Neo-Confederates, the Industrial Fascists, and the Evangelical Paleo-conservatives congealed into the Coolidge/Hoover Republican Party and managed to govern virtually uncontested until the Great Depression upended their coalition.
But at this point, leftist organizing and activism had rebuilt and reorganized around generally palpable national socialist principles. And over the subsequent decade leading to Pearl Harbor, established a left-leaning national government coalition that was broadly sympathetic to the Russian and Chinese Communists to the point that we were openly aiding them in their wars against Germany and Japan.
Pearl Harbor was an attempt by the Japanese military to cut the US out of the Pacific Rim, precisely because we'd undermined their access to Middle Eastern petrochemicals and smuggled arms to the KMT/Communist coalition on mainland China. It was "unprovoked" in a very technical sense, but far from unanticipated given our open aiding and abetting of anti-Japanese forces all across the East Pacific.
America was leaning Communist by 1944. If FDR hadn't plotzed and handed the keys of the country to a reactionary like Truman, we might have avoided the Cold War entirely. Or, at least, forestalled it for a few more years.
oPeN tHE sTraIt
...Is there an implication of the broken legs I'm missing?
Wikipedia has a video of the blast. Imagine standing on deck when the torpedo exploded and you'll understand why there were broken legs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_IRIS_Dena
Oh, I understand why, I was wondering if pointing it out was supposed to imply something else I wasn't getting.
There is something else which explains the word "mysterious" -- the last time a torpedo was used on a ship/boat was WW2, so because the rescuers were not familar with those type of injuries (as no one had seen them since 1945) is why they called them mysterious.
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/military-history/2026/03/04/this-wwii-submarine-was-the-last-us-boat-to-notch-a-torpedo-kill-until-this-week/
Wasn't the Belgrano sunk by torpedo?
You're right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano
Yes. Although it is perhaps relevant that Belgrano was of WW2 vintage, and Conqueror sank it with a torpedo that was first introduced in the 1920s, so a very different level of damage.
How I read that is that it's most likely that an explosion from below (torpedo) was the type of attack used.
I'm venturing a huge leap of a guess here, but my first thoughts were either:
Leaping from the deck of a huge ship into the ocean imperfectly is kinda like hitting concrete. Water is not "soft" when you're jumping from a ship deck several stories up and don't "pencil dive" just right.
Being on the deck of a ship suffering a catastrophic explosion below, strong enough to rupture the upper decks and "send the helipad flying meters high", would force the surface many sailors were standing on upwards, far too quickly and unexpectedly for their legs to brace.
How did it "send the helicopter flight deck metres into the air" and the broken legs of people who were onboard is somehow "mysterious"? They put a shitload of energy at the bottom of it, and it went up. Legs are closer to the floor. Was this written by an idiot?
The rescuers didn't know that at the time. It was right there in both the post and the full article.
"I went to RIMPAC, and all I got was this lousy
t-shirtbullet in my back"Kinda thinking about leaving the USA at this point.
What does this mean? Are they implying the US pulled up and literally broke people’s legs?
Could someone explain this to me?
Edit: I’m just asking about the broken legs. I understand the rest. Is it abnormal in torpedo attacks? Why did they call it mysterious?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_IRIS_Dena
Nothing about broken legs I can find.
My question was specifically about the broken legs.
If a ship is in distress you don't normally get broken legs, it's the implication that there was a very violent event that either caused people who were just standing around to get broken legs, or they panicked and jumped in to the water from height, having no time to reach lifeboats.
Also it's showing the grim reality of war. The news usually like to say something was bombed and people killed, rather than something was bombed, a couple people vaporised, body parts founds in all directions and people amputated/mutilated, blinded. Or in this case drowned in agony with broken legs
I understand that.
But wouldn’t you have broken arms, shoulders, backs, etc etc.
Why call out legs specifically? Why is it a mystery?
It was a mystery from the perspective of the Sri Lankan rescuers, who didn't realise at the time the exact nature of the Iranian ship's fate. They knew it had been sunk, but not how. Later, the periscope footage would be released, illuminating the exact cause of the harm suffered by the Iranian sailors.
Did you watch the video?
Here's another link just in case ... https://news.usni.org/2026/03/04/video-u-s-attack-boat-torpedoes-iranian-frigate-off-sri-lanka
Bro the torpedo exploded the hull, sending the ships helicopter pad meters into the air. Imagine standing on a thing that violently explodes upwards. You gon' break some legs.
We live in Early Warhammer 40k universe. There are no good guys.
I don't see where it's clarified that the ship was unarmed or if that would make it somehow not a military target? It's not a civilian ship, it's a military vessel.
Call me crazy, but in a race of most-illegal, attacking a legal target in an illegal war seems like a pretty low hanging fruit. A lot of making something out of nothing vibe when there's plenty of somethings to actually talk about.
Again, assuming I didn't miss where it's outlined that this isn't the case, but a WARship being attacked by another WARship (submarine if there's a technical difference but that's not my point) in a WAR just doesn't seem like an ethical dilemma beyond the shitty reasons for the illegal war in the first place.
I can tell you didn't read the article.
The same Los Angeles–class nuclear-powered attack submarine that sank the Dena, the USS Charlotte, had participated in the same Fleet review. They knew it was unarmed. They followed the unarmed ship from the international unity review, and then sank the vessel in open water, 2000 miles from the illegal war being waged by drumpf and his pedophile allies.
This is just another war crime in a multitude of them. Every single person in this administration should hang.
Even if it's not technically a war crime, it's still disgusting. An unarmed ship heading home from a diplomatic exercise, that they knew was unarmed, and they torpedoed it for PR. They could have simply forced it to surrender with no danger to the submarine, but they wanted an epic torpedo video for trump to watch and clap at.
In any case, I wish death on all the yankee devils
It was a legitimate target for sure. Trying to make a deal out of this ship is just stupid. You have far better cases to be made with the school's that were hit.
The fact it's now confirmed they informed Sri Lanka of the sinking and sailors in distress removes that aspect of a potential war crime as well.
As to the articles mentioning of mysteriously broken legs. I don't think that's a particularly big mystery... when the floor accelerates that quickly into you feet first. Broken legs are to be expected.
Think of it this way. The ship had been engaged in what was essentially a diplomatic mission, supposedly unarmed though I guess we'll never know. The US was also a participant in this function. They waited until it was over and the Iranian ship was heading home, then killed them. This was certainly treacherous, and arguably perfidious. Definitely an atrocity in my book. Perhaps not technically a war crime, but too close for comfort. May the captain and crew of the American submarine meet a watery grave
It's a cowardly strike. I'm not arguing with you there. All I'm saying is that everyone was up and about it being a warcrime. Which it wasn't.
It is arguably a war crime, though. Not cut and dry, but certainly arguable due to the context of it having been at a mutually-attended fleet exercise - this would bestow protections, at least while at the exercise, if not after. Feels like we'll need to slightly amend the laws of war once this is over.
absolutely not a legitimate target. Especially during an illegal war.
Its a warship. Of course its a legitimate target.
I understand you dislike the action that took place. I also think it was cowardly. But it simply does not change the fact that warships are legitimate targets in war.
Regardless of what the USA would like to call it or if it had congressional approval or not.
"Trying to make a deal out of this ship is just stupid. You have far better cases to be made with the school's that were hit."
2 things can be bad to varying degrees. Nuance and context are things.
For sure. I suppose I just don't get why everyone is making a fuzz over the ship when every single country would do the same.
War is not a game.
It was a war ship therefore a valid target
I hope you were being sarcastic and not an ignorant monster.
I hope you are being sarcastic and not an ignorant monster.
The war is evil. But a military ship is legally a valid target. The lying characterization that a warship is not a valid target is what we object to. We don't like liars.
An attack on an unarmed vessel during a ceremonial voyage 2000 miles from the illegal war… yeah no. Not a valid target. Just another war crime to add to the pile.
Might as well say that that school full of little girls is a valid military target because they might join the military someday. Just a really, really fucking stupid comment you made.
You are literally allowed to shoot fleeing soldiers, under the Geneva Conventions. I agree that the war itself is illegal, but under the laws of war it was a valid target. Please stop saying false things because they feel "truthy" to you.
You're allowed to shoot unarmed soldiers you say?
Dang sure sounds like the unarmed soldiers 2000 miles from the illegal war were hors de combat to me, but what the fuck do I know? I'm just someone who values human life above the whims of a pedophile traitor but I assume you're not bothered by such concerns?
None of those in that list are fleeing soldiers, which is the case I listed. You are obviously incapable of reading comprehension, so it is meaningless for me to reply further.
Oh dang yeah that ship really was fleeing that International Unity Celebration, you sure that doesn't count? 🤣
Where does it say that being hors de combat is only fleeing soldiers?
Dang, man, you might just be really fucking stupid.
Under the definitions laid out in the IHL, which are taken directly from Geneva Convention Protocol 1, they were not hors de combat. This was a shameful, cowardly act - but it was not a war crime.
Contrary to you I don't justify war crimes.
Anyone got a link to the video?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_IRIS_Dena