Iranian warship sunk by the US was sailing home after taking part in an exhibition hosted by India
Iranian warship sunk by the US was sailing home after taking part in an exhibition hosted by India
Are you arguing semantics over the use of âcarpet bombingâ? Because it was definitely bombed.
Bro two hospitals and a school where they havenât 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.
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.
I still donât think they knew, or at least mistakes were made. I donât see any reason to stike like 500 military targets and then just that particular school.
People give the US too much credit
So youâre under the impression we know how to find their nuclear program, is exact storage locations, the defenses in place, how much rock and concrete itâs under but somehow some way canât use a telephone book to find out itâs a girlâs 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?
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?
I donât 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?
Youâre trying to misrepresent the question
If saying that this wasnât an error, how do you explain them hitting (almost) no schools and (almost) exclusively military targets? Why would they add just the one school?
Weâve gone over this, they say itâs 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.
Just to understand your claim: youâre saying Israel and the US are attacking hospitals with precision bombs, not carpet bombs? Not sure which would be better, to be honest.
youâre saying Israel and the US are attacking hospitals with precision bombs, not carpet bombs?
This has been Israelâs M.O. for literal decades.
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.
Every statement of this tweet is factually false.
The US did and does horrible things, but the attack of this ship was legal: uwa.edu.au/âŚ/us-sank-an-iranian-warship-and-didntâŚ
It was a cruel and cynical attack, but it adhered to the rules of warfare.
This doesnât change that Trump is a monster and this war is horrible, but this torpedo attack itself was legal.
I get this vibe that no one knows whatâs going on anymore and everything is just running on the fumes of the zeitgeist and conspiracy theories.
I find the fact that the whole world âknowsâ that China will invade Taiwan in 2027 to be really strange. And this has been the case for years. It feels like certain groups are taking it as a foregone conclusion.
Same as where Hitler govt. could have set the claimed non-citizens to do some kind of menial labour but instead they decided to expend resources into stuffing them into smoke boxes for long periods.
There seems to be someone craving the same thing over here and I find it hard to understand why that somebody craves that so much.
First principles: Even assuming they somehow magically knew there really were no smallarms on the ship, why take the risk of getting stabbed or beaten with a pipe or trapping you and starting a fire or whatever. It would be another thing if the ship surrendered, but no reason to put yourself and your fellow soldiers at risk to go easy on your enemy.
Deeper reason: With long range missiles and drones being the primary threat to a ship, the biggest limitations are actually locating the enemy ship, tracking it and guiding the missile/drones towards it. Even a ship with no ammo can do that by relaying your position to another ship or shore based missiles/drones. So pulling your ship right next to an enemy one and having to stay there while your marines go board it is not a safe thing to do.
Capturing a vessel is very different than performing a boarding action. If the U.S. captured the Iranian vessel then there wouldnât be any risk of âgetting beaten with a pipeâ because the Iranian vessel surrendered.
Deeper Dumber reason: Given the state of technology today and with all of the jamming, electronic warfare tech, and counter drone and missile stuff that the U.S. Navy has, it wouldnât make a lick of difference whether the Iranian vessel was right next to a U.S. warship or not.
Edit: lol at getting beaten with a pipe. Jesus fucking Christ. Get off of LLMs, theyâre clearly ruining your ability to reason
In a warfighting context, to capture an enemy vessel or position means you coerced them to surrender with overwhelming firepower or threat of force. Also is semantics the only counterargument you have?
Normally I wouldnât care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
who were not at war
And you accuse me of semantics? Is Russia also not at war in your mind, because they did not make some war declaration ritual?
Normally I wouldnât care this much, but the whole reason for this conversation was that you were defending the murders of unarmed sailors who were not at war. So fuck you, you fucking shitwhistle.
WTF is this argument? Oh no, they did not have ammo in their gun at the particular moment they were killed. I guess any sniper who kills a general or an assassin trying to kill Hitler should go straight to hell, because their target was not holding a gun at that particular moment.
I find it mind boggling that the part that troubles you is the death of soldiers supporting brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups throughout the region. However many issues I have with the US military, the US as a whole, and itâs pedophile president, this really isnât one of them.
brutal theocratic dictator most well known for killing his own people and supporting terrorist groups
Heheh.
âtheocratic dictatorâ -> âdemocratic partyâ idk maybe sth else
âsupportingâ -> âcreating, funding and nationalisingâ
The rest are pretty much common.
The parts that matter are common.
What do we do? Doesnât matter who wins, we all lose.
should it somehow make me sad they are killing each other?
Should I be deciding what your feelings should be?