US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth condemned for sinking Iranian ship in international waters. Indian politicians criticize US attack as cowardly and despicable.
When you join a military, you take the risk that someone might shoot at you at some point.
It’s a warship, not a civilian ship, what’s the problem? I can’t think of a “better” target in a war than a warship.
Is that little knob on the bow for spraying lemonade at the thirsty? Are those boxes in the back for delivering free meals to underprivileged students?
Someone help me see your viewpoint as to why sinking this ship is an especially evil action getting as much attention as a literal girl’s school.
You are asking why the outrage over this vs the school. Well, that’s a false dilemma. Nobody says the school bombing was A-OK.
You’re asserting that being in a country’s Navy makes it so that you accept the risk someone might shoot you. Well, nobody says it isn’t so. But that doesn’t make that loss of life A-OK. This is especially shocking given the brutal nature of a ship being torpedoed like that.
The United States has not declared war on Iran according to their own fucking constitution. They only make a bullshit self defense argument. But the ship was in an unrelated part of the world, in Shri Lanka, so literally unable to threaten anything. So the killing felt gratuitous, cold blooded, brutal, unnecessary. The US could have neutralized the ship in a more humane way, given them a chance to surrender, etc. Instead they chose this.
So, no, this isn’t more important than the bombing of the school, and yes it is a warship but it’s still brutal and shocking. Your scolding of people’s natural aversion to this massacre is just not helpful.
Did that first, found the article filled with emotion and lacking explanation. Thanks for the coolguy snappy comment instead of explaining that view tho. It’s a warship, not a hospital boat. It’s designed to shoot missiles, shells, and torpedos.
Submarines haven’t surfaced to ask for surrenders since WW1. They stopped during, because asking for surrenders resulted in getting blown out of the water by ships that “should be” unarmed. If you were captain, would you gamble everyone on board your ship by giving up a submarine’s greatest weapon, stealth, on the assumption a warship belonging to a rules-flouting authoritarian regime is following the rules?
I have heard through (unsourced reddit comments keep in mind) that the US knew about the war games and was supposed to take place and pulled out last minute. So they knew that the ship was partaking and still blew it up. The US participated in the 2024 edition, so it seems like it was true.
I also don’t understand that would be a sticking point. It was in international waters when it was sank, so I assume it was returning home to get armed with shells, torpedoes, and missiles. Why wait for a warship to become an active threat before striking it?
It presumably had the option to either surrender itself to a neutral port, as another Iranian warship has done, or fly the white flag.
The ship was waiting to surrender to Sri Lanka I think. There was another one that had priority that did surrender while the one that was hit was next in line.
Because they knew it wasn’t a threat. They could have intercepted it, and the crew would likely have surrendered, and there would have been no senseless loss of life. It did not have that option as far as I can tell. It seems like Mr Social media content Hegseth wanted a video to share on socials to show how badass we are and opted to blow away innocents. That is fucked, and if you can’t see why, I can’t help you.
Submarines haven’t asked for surrenders in over a century. They stopped because ships that “should be unarmed” kept blowing them out if the water once they gave up stealth. Would you gamble your ship and crew on an Iranian warship following wargames rules to the T?
I expect this to be unpopular with the hive:
When you join a military, you take the risk that someone might shoot at you at some point.
It’s a warship, not a civilian ship, what’s the problem? I can’t think of a “better” target in a war than a warship.
Is that little knob on the bow for spraying lemonade at the thirsty? Are those boxes in the back for delivering free meals to underprivileged students?
Someone help me see your viewpoint as to why sinking this ship is an especially evil action getting as much attention as a literal girl’s school.
Your comment does multiple things at once.
You are asking why the outrage over this vs the school. Well, that’s a false dilemma. Nobody says the school bombing was A-OK.
You’re asserting that being in a country’s Navy makes it so that you accept the risk someone might shoot you. Well, nobody says it isn’t so. But that doesn’t make that loss of life A-OK. This is especially shocking given the brutal nature of a ship being torpedoed like that.
The United States has not declared war on Iran according to their own fucking constitution. They only make a bullshit self defense argument. But the ship was in an unrelated part of the world, in Shri Lanka, so literally unable to threaten anything. So the killing felt gratuitous, cold blooded, brutal, unnecessary. The US could have neutralized the ship in a more humane way, given them a chance to surrender, etc. Instead they chose this.
So, no, this isn’t more important than the bombing of the school, and yes it is a warship but it’s still brutal and shocking. Your scolding of people’s natural aversion to this massacre is just not helpful.
How about doing the minimum and reading the article?
Did that first, found the article filled with emotion and lacking explanation. Thanks for the coolguy snappy comment instead of explaining that view tho. It’s a warship, not a hospital boat. It’s designed to shoot missiles, shells, and torpedos.
Submarines haven’t surfaced to ask for surrenders since WW1. They stopped during, because asking for surrenders resulted in getting blown out of the water by ships that “should be” unarmed. If you were captain, would you gamble everyone on board your ship by giving up a submarine’s greatest weapon, stealth, on the assumption a warship belonging to a rules-flouting authoritarian regime is following the rules?
I have heard through (unsourced reddit comments keep in mind) that the US knew about the war games and was supposed to take place and pulled out last minute. So they knew that the ship was partaking and still blew it up. The US participated in the 2024 edition, so it seems like it was true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milan_(naval_exercise)
I also don’t understand that would be a sticking point. It was in international waters when it was sank, so I assume it was returning home to get armed with shells, torpedoes, and missiles. Why wait for a warship to become an active threat before striking it?
It presumably had the option to either surrender itself to a neutral port, as another Iranian warship has done, or fly the white flag.
The ship was waiting to surrender to Sri Lanka I think. There was another one that had priority that did surrender while the one that was hit was next in line.
Because they knew it wasn’t a threat. They could have intercepted it, and the crew would likely have surrendered, and there would have been no senseless loss of life. It did not have that option as far as I can tell. It seems like Mr Social media content Hegseth wanted a video to share on socials to show how badass we are and opted to blow away innocents. That is fucked, and if you can’t see why, I can’t help you.
Submarines haven’t asked for surrenders in over a century. They stopped because ships that “should be unarmed” kept blowing them out if the water once they gave up stealth. Would you gamble your ship and crew on an Iranian warship following wargames rules to the T?