US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
submarines generally do not have what you would call a lifeboat. Because first of all, where would they even keep one? And secondly, they are submerged, at times several hundreds of meters deep. They don’t need a lifeboat, they need a system to send their crew to the surface.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
They’ve given fair warning to literally every ship they’ve sunk. Laugh all you want but that’s just a fact.
That’s not what I found laughable.
I cannot help but laugh at your notion that Ukraine would let a Russian warship just sit outside of their waters simply because Russia said it was unarmed.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it’s a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you’re wrong.
Yes they were, you’re talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran’s waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they’re not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It’s a war crime and you’re equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn’t even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you’re making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it’s too rescue the crew because we aren’t at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it’s gross.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
It is when it’s an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.
Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?
Also wrong but clearly so at least.
Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn’t have the unrep ability the US does unless you’re implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn’t even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it’s actions.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.
That’s equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.
That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.
Agreed, I didn’t say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
What’s the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn’t a war is defending him?
You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That’s not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn’t approve it?
if that’s genuinly your belief, I’m lost for words.
You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country’s warship is an act of war.
The only reason Trump isn’t calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as “war”) is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.
“Special combat operations” laughable. It’s exactly what Russia claimed they’re doing in Ukraine. “Oh we’re not at war with Ukraine… it’s just a special military operation”.
you’re an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i’ve said is that it isn’t a war crime. and neither is what followed
you can think it’s shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that’s all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.
The scope of what a Party to the conflict is actually required to do on the basis of Article 18(1) will depend on the interpretation of the qualifier ‘possible’. What will be possible in the circumstances is inherently context-specific. Thus, the measures that must be taken in each case have to be determined in good faith, based on the circumstances and the information reasonably available to both the commanders on the spot or nearby and to the other organs acting on behalf of the Party to the conflict.
In this regard, the fact that the obligation of Article 18(1) applies to the ‘Party to the conflict’ as a whole is critical. Thus, it may occur that the commander of a single warship or even of an entire naval task-force considers, in a good-faith assessment, that it is impossible to undertake, with the assets under his or her command, any of the activities required under Article 18. This does not, however, absolve those overseeing the commander’s operations (who will have a fuller picture of the situation and may be able to deploy other assets) from assessing what ‘possible measures’ can – and therefore must – be taken. Nor does it absolve the commander from considering other activities that are possible, such as alerting nearby coastal authorities or other vessels in the area or making an ‘appeal to the charity’ of neutral vessels in the sense of Article 21.
Bro the fact you’re taken to multiple personal attacks but can’t remember where or when is fairly telling.
That’s how it is legally defined in the United States like it or not that’s how it actually works.
It’s not a belief it’s the actual law.
An act of war and declaration of war are two separate things. Taking a head of state into custody is an act of war and yet we aren’t at war with them either.
Duh, that doesn’t change the fact that we are not at war.
Yeah no shit, two shitty nations using the same playbook doesn’t really change anything and Russian law allows Putin control over declaration of war, that simply isn’t how it works in the US.
You 100% are, and it 100% is a war crime and that is iirc the fifth personal attack on me.
It’s all of those things and a war crime.
You’ve proven my point but apparently don’t know you have. Though it is fairly amusing you insult my reading comprehension and quote that particular section without comprehending it.
Hold on, you’re complaining that I’ve repeatedly somehow insulted you personally by saying going along with Trumps notion that this isn’t a war is defending his stance that it isn’t a war.
Yet you started by saying I simping for hegseth, and that’s not a personal attack?
Yes. Declaration of war and an act of war are two different things. Very astute of you. But they both lead to the same thing. War.
You don’t have to declare war to start one. Or be in one. You can just as easily start one by committing an act of war. That’s why it’s called “an act of war”. It’s an action someone would take if they were at war with someone.
I know you don’t think the US is at war with Iran. But I say Bombing their military installations and sinking their navy is more than proof of the US being at war with Iran. And pretty much every single country would agree with that.
You seem to be offended by just about anything. I don’t think it’s a direct personal attack to say I think you’re a moron if you believe I’m defending hegseth after I’ve stated numerous times that I’m not, noting his actual war crime of bombing shipwrecked civilians outside of Venezuela and hoping he is brought to justice for it.
If that’s a belief you still retain then it is what it is. If not, you have nothing to be upset about.
Oh, and I comprehend what I quoted you perfectly. If you read it thoroughly you will understand that militaries can exercise a litany of ‘possible actions’ that does not constitute them personally sailing by and picking up survivors. As long as it’s a decision taken in “good faith”. Which is in itself up for some serious interpretation
You’ve repeatedly insulted me, no one said it was all claiming I support Trump.
That was after you insulted me first boss, just reread the comments of you’re confused about chronology.
No they in fact do not, they can but that is not inevitable or obligate.
In this country it is legally not a war unless declared by Congress. Casus belli does not obligate the declaration of war.
Legally we aren’t. That’s not the only personal attack you’ve made either but you’re just repeating yourself at this point. Yes those are war crimes as well, it does not mean the US is at war, clearly.
It’s not a belief, it’s how the construction of the Constitution works.
Would you like to read that paragraph again with more than a second grade reading comprehension?
What submarines tend to have, is almost like an individual “lifeboat” that will send a few sailors to the surface, while being submerged. it will then deploy on the surface to provide a very small raft. They are not intended to act as lifeboats for sailors peddling water at the surface.
They are intended to act as a means for the crew to escape the submarine while it’s submerged.
You can have whatever belief you want. You are entitled to be wrong. It was not illegal for the US to sink that ship. It was not illegal for their submarine to not approach, surface, and engage in active rescue operations.
Your personal belief of the morality of the action isn’t relevant.
Submarines were ‘literally’, not invented for the purpose of siezing other ships. They were invented to blow them up while remaining undetected. Which is for all intents and purposes, the exact opposite of capturing enemy vessels.
That’s not what I found laughable.
By your own accord, they did not just let ships sit outside of their territory. They told them to go home or be attacked. Which isn’t because they’re so nice to give them a fair warning. It’s to show the rest of the world that they are justly defending themselves from an forgein invader and would give Russians a fair chance to leave their country and go home. It’s PR.
You keep using words like “literally” and “equivocating” but doesn’t seem to understand what they mean or how to use them.
Again, you have what seems like countless of actual war crimes to choose from to criticise the US. Why you want to die on the hill in the one case where it wasn’t a war crime is beyond me.
A warship is a legit target. Their supply of ammunition onboard is irrelevant. The requirement is to “take all possible measures” which is at best, up for some serious interpretation. They did not deem it a possible measure to rescue them on their own.
As a matter of fact. They probably did not even know they didn’t have (enough) lifeboats deployed. They fires a torpedo well out of range of the ships own sonar. There’s no reason for a submarine to go in and personally inspect the aftermath.
Yes a seie and actual rafts, is not a reading comprehension issue, it’s a you meeting factually wrong.
Duh.
It was on both accounts.
Neither is yours especially when you’re wrong.
Yes they were, you’re talking about the modem use not their original intention.
Again dena was not outside of Iran’s waters nor for that matter us waters they were 2000 miles from the ao and unarmed, they’re not at all comparable.
Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.
Ya huh, tell me where I used either incorrectly rather than playing for personal insults yet again.
It’s a war crime and you’re equivocating.
Its a military target not a warship when unarmed acting as an auxiliary ship. They didn’t even warn sri lanka which would be the least of all available measures again you’re making excuses for the inexcusable.
There is, it’s too rescue the crew because we aren’t at war with them let alone total war.
Stop simping for hegseth and his illegal bullshit dude, it’s gross.
“Yes my point is they didn’t choose cowardice on purpose. They issued a warning and then took action. It’s the law but yes sure it’s good pr and the right thing to do.”
No, it is not the law that you have to warn a military ship before engaging it in combat. The only ones you have to warn are merchant ships, or civilian ships. You are just wrong.
Ok… how about we start where you said Submarines were “litterally” invented to seize and capture other ships. (That was not what they were literally invented to do. Just because early German uboats snuck up on merchant ships to seize contraband, doesn’t mean it was “literally” what they were invented for.)
And I’m not obscuring or trying to hide behind anything. I’ve been nothing but clear.
It’s a cowardly, planned attack on an allegedly unarmed vessel. But it’s not illegal. They are under no obligation to preemptively warn Sri Lanka. It is believed however they did tell Sri Lanka of where people had to be rescued after torpedoing it.
And you are at war with Iran. Just like Russia is at war with Ukraine. War was a fact the moment the US starting bombing Iran. I know the US doesn’t want to call it a war. Because if they do, they have to admit Trump started one without congressional approval.
By not calling this war for what it is, you’re literally defending Trump.
And I’m not even remotely defending hegseth, you and others claimed attacking this ship was a war crime. It’s not. And that by not rescuing the sailors personally, was another war crime. It can be. But unless the US had other ships that could safely do so in the vicinity, it’s not a war crime to instead signal a third country and informing them of their location.
That’s not me defending anyone. I’m simply telling you it wasn’t a war crime.
What was a war crime, and probably breaks lots of other “international laws” was the indiscriminate bombing of Venezuelan civilian ships. Particularly the part where after bombing a ship, which was disabled by the strike. They then ordered a second strike. Ensuring the death of any potential survivors.
THAT was a blatant crime and an actual illegal order. And everyone involved should be tried as such.
It is when it’s an auxillary ship carrying civilians bud. You are just wrong.
Ya huh. The most successful subs of the class being designed to do just that is what? Coincidence?
Also wrong but clearly so at least.
Not allegedly, it was boarded and searched and Iran doesn’t have the unrep ability the US does unless you’re implying they docked somewhere and replenished munitions it was in fact unarmed. No one said preemptively, they didn’t even notify them after the strike. Sri lanka said they did not add I do not trust the US because it has time and time again lied about it’s actions.
We are not at war, we are taking part in special combat operations. After 150 days without approval from Congress we will be at defacto war. Until then we aren’t at war.
By not calling it a war I’m saying Congress did not approve and thus it is not a war. See above for why. But nice try at yet another personal insult.
It was a war crime, auxillary ships are not taken in the same way an active fleet ship is. The US did have other ships in the area notably the pict which had just left sri lanka from the same fleet exhibition.
That’s equivocating which is why I keep saying it and it is in fact defending the indefensible.
That is also a war crime, yes. Good job accepting that fact.
Agreed, I didn’t say this was an illegal order. I said it was a war because it clearly was.
What’s the insult? You feel insulted that I said going along with Trumps notion that this somehow isn’t a war is defending him?
You cannot seriously believe that what defines a war is your congress approval of it. So if Trump decides to bomb China. That’s not Trump starting a war then? Because Congress didn’t approve it?
if that’s genuinly your belief, I’m lost for words.
You can start a war without a declaration of war. Sinking another country’s warship is an act of war.
The only reason Trump isn’t calling it a war (except for all the times he genuinly referred to it as “war”) is because that would be impeachable and illegal under US law.
“Special combat operations” laughable. It’s exactly what Russia claimed they’re doing in Ukraine. “Oh we’re not at war with Ukraine… it’s just a special military operation”.
you’re an actual idiot if you think im defending the sinking of the ship. im not. the only thing i’ve said is that it isn’t a war crime. and neither is what followed
you can think it’s shitty, cowardly, reprehensable, disgusting, that’s all fine. those are opinions. what isnt opinion is that it did not constitute a war crime.
Bro the fact you’re taken to multiple personal attacks but can’t remember where or when is fairly telling.
That’s how it is legally defined in the United States like it or not that’s how it actually works.
It’s not a belief it’s the actual law.
An act of war and declaration of war are two separate things. Taking a head of state into custody is an act of war and yet we aren’t at war with them either.
Duh, that doesn’t change the fact that we are not at war.
Yeah no shit, two shitty nations using the same playbook doesn’t really change anything and Russian law allows Putin control over declaration of war, that simply isn’t how it works in the US.
You 100% are, and it 100% is a war crime and that is iirc the fifth personal attack on me.
It’s all of those things and a war crime.
You’ve proven my point but apparently don’t know you have. Though it is fairly amusing you insult my reading comprehension and quote that particular section without comprehending it.
Hold on, you’re complaining that I’ve repeatedly somehow insulted you personally by saying going along with Trumps notion that this isn’t a war is defending his stance that it isn’t a war.
Yet you started by saying I simping for hegseth, and that’s not a personal attack?
Yes. Declaration of war and an act of war are two different things. Very astute of you. But they both lead to the same thing. War.
You don’t have to declare war to start one. Or be in one. You can just as easily start one by committing an act of war. That’s why it’s called “an act of war”. It’s an action someone would take if they were at war with someone.
I know you don’t think the US is at war with Iran. But I say Bombing their military installations and sinking their navy is more than proof of the US being at war with Iran. And pretty much every single country would agree with that.
You seem to be offended by just about anything. I don’t think it’s a direct personal attack to say I think you’re a moron if you believe I’m defending hegseth after I’ve stated numerous times that I’m not, noting his actual war crime of bombing shipwrecked civilians outside of Venezuela and hoping he is brought to justice for it.
If that’s a belief you still retain then it is what it is. If not, you have nothing to be upset about.
Oh, and I comprehend what I quoted you perfectly. If you read it thoroughly you will understand that militaries can exercise a litany of ‘possible actions’ that does not constitute them personally sailing by and picking up survivors. As long as it’s a decision taken in “good faith”. Which is in itself up for some serious interpretation
Good luck. You’ll need it.
You’ve repeatedly insulted me, no one said it was all claiming I support Trump.
That was after you insulted me first boss, just reread the comments of you’re confused about chronology.
No they in fact do not, they can but that is not inevitable or obligate.
In this country it is legally not a war unless declared by Congress. Casus belli does not obligate the declaration of war.
Legally we aren’t. That’s not the only personal attack you’ve made either but you’re just repeating yourself at this point. Yes those are war crimes as well, it does not mean the US is at war, clearly.
It’s not a belief, it’s how the construction of the Constitution works.
You clearly do not.
No need for luck nor to condescend.