top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [S] 347 points 8 months ago (80 children)
  • [–] 158 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    What the actual fuck? The US has turned into a parody of itself. It's sad to see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    It is my first belief that this is the point.

    And Putin is quite happy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, Putin probably enjoys this, but this is not trump alone. He has the support of the whole republican party, or at least 95% of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago

    I agree it's not but like AIPAC I don't think it's a stretch that the broader cartel that is the GOP realizes their reelection hinges on the bilateral relationship with Russia. They've been in cahoots for at least 2 decades or more.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Well don't think he's that happy since his supply of drones most likely has dried up

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If I understand right, ruzzia has long since started to develop and innovate domestically upon the design of Shaheds, and I don't think they were receiving that many relative to domestic production, though I agree it's a thorn in Putin's side presumably.

    Though I have some other theories as to the bigger game being played here but just theories and speculation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (19 children)

    IDK. Kind of sounds like some shit Russia would do. 😒

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    “russia would do” - when you say that to yourself remember that phrase is propaganda. it’s literally some shit the USA did do. Your “IDK” is cognitive dissonance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    😖

    Yes, it's us. We did this. WE'RE THE NEW RUSSIA!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago

    Bruh you're not the "new Russia", Russia is america Lite. Has been since the fall of the USSR. You've always been this. You killed millions of Iraqi while pretending to liberate them. Same in Vietnam, same in Korea.

    This is what you've always been; hopefully when Trump is out of office you stay in reality and don't fall back to the dream you believed prior to Trump.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 48 points 8 months ago (11 children)

    Well Russia didn't do it because they don't have the "fuck you" power that the US has. Russia sucks and is a huge danger, but this is absolutely not the time to whataboutism about them. I really hope you're being ironic, because otherwise it's just providing cover for mass murder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (10 children)

    I mean... there can be two murderous ruthless sadistic powers on earth. Three even! I'll let you choose the third.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    And whataboutisms do not help either case. They just muddy the water and derail the conversation. If you want to talk about Russia or China, the US fighting this awful war only helps other competing empires. Russia is more likely to carve further into Europe, China is more guaranteed to take Taiwan, and other countries will race towards nuclear deterrents even harder then they were. Many more people are dead and will die because of this path America has driven us into. It is horrific and America needs to be stopped to make everyone safer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I was thinking of China, but I like yours better.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    China is bad, but it's it worse than the these to 3. I doubt it.

    The west considers it worst since

    1. It's not an European or white nation, which is technologically advanced.
    2. It's daring to reject European interference.
    3. It is communist.
    4. It is trying to be the next hegemony.

    It is bad because

    1. It is a dictatorship
    2. There are a lot of human rights abuse happening in is own country.
    3. It does try to be the next USSR.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    I was thinking about how it treat minorities and their threats to Taiwan and how that would impact the global balance and economy.

    I don't care about their race, claimed economic system or government.

    But Israel is a genocidal regime, so as of 2026 definitely worse. China has potential to do more damage, tho.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -21 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (13 children)

    Every statement of this tweet is factually false.

    The US did and does horrible things, but the attack of this ship was legal: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2026/march/us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didnt-rescue-survivors-is-this-legal-in-war

    It was a cruel and cynical attack, but it adhered to the rules of warfare.

    This doesn’t change that Trump is a monster and this war is horrible, but this torpedo attack itself was legal.

    Edit: anybody thinking I’m defending Trump or his war on Iran can check my post history. This is my post from literally 1 day ago:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 8 months ago* (6 children)
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    In the part about rescuing the survivors, he is correct in that the US adhered within the laws of naval warfare.

    A submarine is not expected to be able to rescue sailors. A precedence dating back to WW2 when a German submarine DID rescue allied sailors, surfacing and carrying them on top of their sub while towing a lifeboat. They were then fired upon by allied forces, and were forced to cut the line and submerge. After that. Orders were issued to submarines to not engage in rescue operations.

    Wheater or not the sub was in danger in that region is ultimately speculation. It's possible the ship sent mayday back to Iran, who could have sent aircrafts. Regardless of probability, it is a possibility.

    What the law says, is you need to take all possible measures. Surfacing isn't seen as a possible measure. And where would they even keep them? Subs are cramped enough as it is.

    The article notes that Sri Lankan rescue ships were quick to arrive at the scene. Possibly due to the US sending a message about the coordinates of the sinking. Which does fall in line with "all possible measures"

    The guy isn't defending anyone. He clearly said he thinks the war is illegal and Trump is a monster.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I don't know all risks they may or may not face while surfacing outside of Sri Lankan waters. I'm not privy to any of those details. I doubt you are either.

    But where exactly do you think they would keep the rescued sailors? Submarines are not known for their abundance of space for captives.

    There is no good reason for a submarine to linger around after sinking a ship. You go away and hide.

    What they did do was notify Sri Lanka, which launched a rescue operation. Which does satisfy the "all possible measures" of conducting rescue.

    You seemingly also read the same article I did. i thought it was explained quite well.

    And why are you bringing up Venezuela? What do they have to do with Iran?

    I assume it's some little aha but what do you think of this!? And this!? Bet you liked that! Bla bla bla.

    I'll make it short. US strikes on Venezuelan boats is not ok, it's state sponsored murder. Any other country would be sanctioned if they did it.

    Trump is an idiot. The US is unreliable. Israel is committing genocide. Nazis are bad. Gestapo is bad.

    Anything else I didn't cover that you need to know about?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago

    Considering the US lost 3 bomb planes to a "friendly" aircraft. It's hardly surprising they don't want to take any unnecessary risk. Surfacing a Submarine is an unnecessary risk.

    The Sri Lankan rescuers seemingly arrived at the scene very quickly. It is not unreasonable to believe the US might have sent them a message. Is it a fact. No. But it looks very plausible given the circumstances.

    I'm sure the US will continue to commit war crimes. But sinking this ship isn't one of them.

    So I ask you again. Where on the submarine do you think they can accommodate the entire crew of a ship they just sank? Where can they keep them prisoners in a manner that is safe for the crew and ship? The answer is nowhere.

    Submarines are not equipped to conduct rescue operations as sea.

    You have so many options of situations where you can accuse the US of actual war crimes. Why don't you use them instead of hyper-fixating on the one incident that isnt?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -30 points 8 months ago (12 children)

    Lot of gymnastics here. This is pretty simple: do not move your unarmed warship through international waters so you can arm it and join an active conflict while your aggressor is literally right next to you.

    The Iranian admiral who ordered this ship to sail is an idiot and this ship was fair game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, and schoolchildren will eventually grow up and reach fighting age so they are also fair game. Parents that sent those kids to school are idiots.

    Oh, and parents can have more kids so they are also fair game. People that decided to be born in Iran are idiots.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 8 months ago (6 children)

    Gymnastics my arse. It was an attack on an unarmed ship.

    During a war these grubs can’t justify. Maggots they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    An unarmed what? What kind of ship was it? Headed to where? To be armed to with what? To do what?

    The war is not justifiable. But given the context that frigate was done the moment it sailed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 8 months ago* (4 children)

    An unarmed what

    Ship, with human lives on it

    What kind…

    Unarmed. Vulnerable.

    Headed to where

    Home port which still doesn’t justify sinking an unarmed ship

    To be armed…

    To do what

    Then it might be fair game if this war was legitimate but it isn’t. It was only done the moment it sailed because Americans are war criminals and the bad guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    I understand this isn't necessarily hinged on just the legality but it is fair game under the laws of warfare even if the war is an illegal one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    Exactly. It was a cynical and cruel action but it was legal, I just looked after the rules. It’s a fucking warship, doesn’t matter if the Iranians claim it was unarmed (or if it actually was).

    Also, submarines are not required to provide rescuse, as surfacing would cause a risk to them. They are obliged to notify others that rescue is needed.

    The US is doing many horrible and clearly illegal things. We can also argue about the ethics of this torpedo attack, but it was not illegal and not a war crime.

    Here is a professor from Australia explaining: https://www.uwa.edu.au/news/article/2026/march/us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didnt-rescue-survivors-is-this-legal-in-war

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -39 points 8 months ago (22 children)
  • [–] 20 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Ryan Grim is an investigative journalist who has a strong track record of accurate and groundbreaking reporting. Whatever semantics arguments you have doesn’t make him any less reputable or this statement any less correct.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    He’s providing context to help people understand what a Kurdish Iranian imam was saying about a washed up son of a former dictator. I’m not sure what’s more pathetic, your lack of reading comprehension or that you genuinely think Pahlavi is an “Iranian opposition leader”. lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago

    Yeah sure, the guy cheering on as the US and Israel murder Iranian children and civilians is such an outstanding leader. He’s so good at opposing Iran, he claps when the blood of Iranian children is spilled. That will surely show those mullahs! What else can you expect from son of a dictator. His father committed mass atrocities against the Iran people after overthrowing Iranian democracy with the support of the CIA. Those are definitely the qualifications Iranian people want in a leader. It’s certainly not just the US, Israel, and a number of bitter exiled monarchists pretending Pahlavi is king.

    Also it’s really hilarious that you linked pieces by Jeremy Scahill. The guy is an even better journalist than Ryan Grim. He won a number of awards for his on the ground reporting on American wars in the Middle East. How arrogant do you have to be to assume you know the region better than he does?

    Also he’s not saying the protests were “inorganic”. Thats just a lie. He’s trying to understand to what extent Israeli and American assets acted as agent provocateurs which isn’t a crazy thing to try and investigate! It’s a known fact that the CIA and Mossad operate in Iran and have carried out acts of sabotage and assassination. Do you really think on the advent of a war the US and Israel wouldn’t try to take advantage of internal unrest? Amazing lol

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 27 points 8 months ago* (3 children)
  • [+] -10 points 8 months ago (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 8 months ago (14 children)

    They mean striking civilian targets when they say carpet bombing, they don't mean WW2 style mass dumb bombing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -21 points 8 months ago (14 children)
  • [–] 23 points 8 months ago* (12 children)

    Bro two hospitals and a school where they haven't shown a valid target nearby is three civilian targets too many for the most technologically advanced military in the world.

    Double tapping is just fuel on a bonfire but sure if prevaricating for fascists is your deal then carry on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 8 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 10 points 8 months ago (10 children)

    Keyword used to be, we have the largest Intel apparatus of any nation, combine that with Israel being at the very least top ten especially when it comes to Iran.

    They knew, stop trying to make excuses for the inexcusable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (9 children)

    I still don't think they knew, or at least mistakes were made. I don't see any reason to stike like 500 military targets and then just that particular school.

    People give the US too much credit

    edit: as a mod seems to have deleted my post for some vague reason, here's the article I referred to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 8 months ago (8 children)

    So you're under the impression we know how to find their nuclear program, is exact storage locations, the defenses in place, how much rock and concrete it's under but somehow some way can't use a telephone book to find out it's a girl's school or use satellite photography to see school children going in and out on a daily basis?

    Really that makes more sense to you then people taking part in a self proclaimed holy war striking civilian targets?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (7 children)

    Yeah, I do indeed think intel on that other stuff you mentioned might get more attention

    How do you explain that out of, say, 5000 schools, they attacked just the one?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (6 children)

    I don't need to explain that, no school should be targeted.

    How do you explain the fact they double tapped it if it were in fact mistaken?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (5 children)

    You're trying to misrepresent the question

    If saying that this wasn't an error, how do you explain them hitting (almost) no schools and (almost) exclusively military targets? Why would they add just the one school?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (4 children)

    We've gone over this, they say it's a holy war. How do you get war powers? You piss off Iran enough to do some actual damage to us personnel either overseas or here at home.

    Why just one? Because one allows you to have sycophants or useful idiots to excuse it as a mistake like for instance what you are doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    You believe they've bombed a singular school so it would be discussed on Lemmy?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (2 children)

    No they bombed a school to spur terror attacks throughout the region and especially in the USA. And you really think it's just lemmy people are talking about it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 111 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Fun fact: they were unarmed

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›