Die USA haben möglicherweise ein Kriegsverbrechen begangen, als sie ein iranisches Schiff versenkten
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/submarine-torpedo-geneva-conventions_n_69ab102ae4b03ae2f88670fb?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=reddit&utm_campaign=us_main
31 Kommentare
U.S. Committed War Crime In Sinking Of Iranian Ship
The world failed to do anything about Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, why would the U.S. expect any different for itself?
It was absolutely a war crime and will be yet another stain on this country’s history.
US has been committing war crimes since long time.
Donald Trump is a war criminal.
“May have.” Thanks for teaching me the cool new way to say “totally did”…
The USA sank an UNARMED ship that was there to participate in exercises with the USA and India. The USA pulled out of the event right before it began, and then fired a torpedo at the UNARMED Iranian ship, killing people and leaving survivors to drown. No class.
I’m only an armchair admiral, one who questions this whole war, and the sinking of that ship specifically. It was a warship, but it wasn’t in combat operations. I have a feeling we only sank it because Hegseth wanted to torpedo a boat since we haven’t done that since WWII.
That said, surfacing a sub makes it incredibly vulnerable. I can understand not surfacing and attempting a rescue. Radioing in the closest rescuers should satisfy the Geneva Convention’s duties.
You mean aside from bombing a school full of children.
Whaaaat? The U.S. doing war crimes? That’s preposterous! Completely unheard of!
I want to clarify because the title doesn’t.
Sinking it was not a war crime, not trying to rescue sailors can be. Though with it being a submarine, I don’t think it would be a possibility to bring them on as I don’t think there would be enough capacity for both crews nor enough capacity to hold that many POW’s.
An interesting read from the ICRC on this issue (duties submarines may have in relation to sinking enemy vessels), particularly 1642 on.
[https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-18/commentary/2017](https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gcii-1949/article-18/commentary/2017)
Why would they care about war crimes against Iran when they have been doing the same thing off of Venezuela for months without repercussions.
Christ image trying to win ww2 with people from reddit calling the shots
Not to mention the girls school.
Add this to the fishing boats
That’s just an average Tuesday for Trump and Bibi.
Yeah, but who’s going to answer for that? Just add it to the list – the lengthening list- of US war crimes.
What about bombing the school where all those little girls were killed? That definitely must be a war crime.
Not the first time this administration has done that
And murdering 168 school girls on day one of the bombing
Just put it on the tab. It’s going to be an expensive bill at closing time. Which I hope is soon.
there may have been some *light* war crime
Secretary of War Bluth
i’m so so sick of “may have” and “allegedly” dude. we saw the ship get blown up, we know what war crimes are defined as, if you have those two things you can make an affirmative claim
They did. There’s no ‘maybe’ about it.
At this point America has become a mercenary country for hire. As long as the price is right, Trump and his administration will bomb whatever they are told.
May have? Seriously?
Probably not the most popular comment to make about this but here we go:
I disagree with the article, this was a legal act of war and not a war crime. Acts of war are by their nature extremely violent and frequently unfair, however the arguments presented in the article do not support the thesis. In short:
* Even if the ship was unarmed, they were a commissioned *warship* in the navy and thus legally not civilians.
* Even if the warship had just taken part in a fleet review, they were not *hours de combat* prior to the attack and were sailing home, thus on their way to rearm and become a serious combatant, but were technically combatants nonetheless. Running out of ammo or having no ammo to begin with doesn’t make you *hours de combat*, it makes you easier to kill and your logistics system look incompetent. See the next point.
* By leaving port they became a valid target. Had they remained in port and became interned, they would have gained protections under the laws of war. But they left a neutral port for home, and were in international waters at the time of the attack, as an active warship without support. This was incompetence, not a crime.
* When you sink an enemy warship, you have an obligation to provide assistance to the shipwrecked survivors, not an obligation to rescue them. Historically speaking, rescues are conducted when convenient and left to third parties when available.
* Submarines don’t have the space to take on more survivors than you can count on your hand. The most they do is radio for another ship to take on the survivors, and monitor the life boats if they have nothing better to do for updates until rescue arrives. This is how they have operated since they were introduced as a type of warship over a century ago, this is not a Trump administration thing.
Are they suppose to save them with a… Submarine..? The U.S. did notify nearby authorities after the attack. To call this a war crime is a stretch lol. This is standard procedure
There’s very little basis in international law (the laws of armed conflict and the UNCLOS) to call it a war crime. US and Iran are at war or engaged in military conflict as far as international law is concerned (whether the US calls it a war or „military use of force“ and whether POTUS has the legal authority within the US to start military conflicts outside of a formal declaration of war which only congress can do is another matter, but that’s an internal affair internal to the US), and in war or military conflict or whatever you want to call it vessels of the enemy navy are legitimate military targets under international law. Actively shooting at you or not, you don’t have to wait for it to rearm or to get back to theater and start participating in combat operations.
There’s zero sources saying it was unarmed. Warships are almost never unarmed, least of all for drills. Idk why people keep parroting that rumor when there’s zero evidence of it.
BUT BUT BUT, even if it was unarmed and the sub could’ve known that (which there’s no way for the sub to know unless the sub captain gets on the ship and inspects all its armaments), it still would’ve been a legitimate military target! It’s a ship in the Iranian navy. Support ships, logistics ships, military tankers, ISR platforms, troop transports are all unarmed. They’re still military in nature and therefore valid targets in war.
That doesn’t change the tragedy of the loss of life, and who knows how many of those poor sailors even wanted to fight for the Iranian regime, but coldly speaking that’s how war works in the context of international law.
Oh word not the bombing of 150 children?????