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.

top 93 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I don't claim that know who the good guys are, but the US and specifically the military are definitely the baddies.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    America is NOT acting on the will of the people.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 7 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 80 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (19 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    "There is no such thing as innocence; only degrees of guilt."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Oh that’s a nice one. Where did you steal that from?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    piefed.social/u/QuantumStorm@lemmy.world 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.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (12 children)

    Centrist, politically relativist nerds unite; incidentally, relativism is a useful cope if you are one of the baddies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    We bombed only seven hospitals, whereas those guys bombed eight. They are clearly the worst, while we are the good guys, relatively speaking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

    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!?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (2 children)

    Yes, Nazis famously made nuanced moral judgements and never sought to demonize or thought certain groups were unequivocally bad at all. LMFAO.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    They also killed a lot of innocent civilians and they were experts at handwaving those murders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 36 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    America and Israel are the common enemies of humanity

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    China and North Korea too while at it, please?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago

    If it was unarmed they could have effortlessly captured it. Imo this is just going to crystallize US opposition.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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. “

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 52 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    No state is moral. People are (or can be) moral.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    Trying to paint either nation as "less bad" is incredibly naive. Both have murdered millions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago

    But it was wicked cool, and we did that, so it's cool. - Hegseth

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    The US has rarely been "the good guys", and even then mostly by accident.

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    Who Are the Good Guys Again?

    Nobody this time. Especially those holding absolute power.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Nobody this time.

    • 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".

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    We are. Because we say so. Now the other guy, wooboy what a bad guy!

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    US are not the good guys since WWII.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Since ever.

    America was leaning towards the Nazis before Pearl Harbor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    oPeN tHE sTraIt

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    ...Is there an implication of the broken legs I'm missing?

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    Oh, I understand why, I was wondering if pointing it out was supposed to imply something else I wasn't getting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    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/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Wasn't the Belgrano sunk by torpedo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 0 points 7 months ago

    You're right.

    (The Belgrano) was the first ship to have been sunk during military operations by a nuclear-powered submarine (the second being the Iranian IRIS Dena, which was sunk by the American submarine USS Charlotte during the 2026 Iran war) and the second sunk in action by any type of submarine since World War II (the first being the Indian frigate INS Khukri, sunk by the Pakistani submarine PNS Hangor during the India–Pakistan war of 1971).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_General_Belgrano

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago*

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    The US have never been 'the good guys'.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    "I went to RIMPAC, and all I got was this lousy t-shirt bullet in my back"

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    Kinda thinking about leaving the USA at this point.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 7 months ago*

    I can tell you didn't read the article.

    The IRIS Dena was taking part in an international fleet review in the Bay of Bengal. Comprised of seventy-five foreign delegations, including the United States, Germany, Japan, and Australia. The theme of the joint exercise: “United by Oceans.”

    As a precondition of its participation in the fleet review and the Milan 2026 exercises in India, the IRIS Dena was unarmed. When it met what Secretary Hegseth boastfully called its “quiet death,” the IRIS Dena was essentially an off-duty vessel, traveling home from a ceremonial voyage on ocean waters that were declared, in 1971 by the UN General Assembly, a zone of peace.

    The United States knew the IRIS Dena was unarmed, and it knew its approximate whereabouts, as it participated in the same exercise.

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    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.

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

    "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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    absolutely not a legitimate target. Especially during an illegal war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›