Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

yockeypuck 🔴

1d

I'm not sure what a "civilian power plant" is, or what a "civilian bridge" is, or how you morally distinguish it from a civilian merchant ship like the ones the Iranians are shooting missiles at.

RT: https://poa.st/objects/c1bad407-6191-4dbe-b809-425975a8f593

Paleface

@Paleface@nicecrew.digital remote

1d

If you want to get into details the difference probably lies in the risk to civilian population that had no choice but to be affected by the strikes, while even though those ships are civilian they were warned to keep away and could have easily complied. The real difference, though, lies in the fact that in the American mind Americans are supposed to be the good guys, and "we're doing war crimes because the other side does it too" shouldn't fly.

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@Paleface @Terry So it's the guy who scrubs the head's fault that his ship had a missle fired at it. Also I don't know when attacking bridges or power plants became a war crime; I assume it was when Donald Trump wanted to do it.

Terry

@Terry@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Paleface >Also I don't know when attacking power plants became a war crime

1977

And we're talking about nuclear power plants in many cases

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@Terry @Paleface 1977, that was the one that gave protection for those "fighting colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes," right?

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@Terry @Paleface Also, and I'll be the first to admit I looked this up, neither Iran nor the United States are parties to the protocol in question.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface >neither Iran nor the United States are parties to the protocol in question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I_to_the_Geneva...

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@WandererUber @Terry @Paleface Yes, that is what the screenshot says.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface "Sergey Lavrov spoke about this..."

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@WandererUber @Terry @Paleface To not be too glib, signing a treaty does not enter it into effect. An American signed the form but the Senate never ratified the treaty; it therefore is not an agreement to which the US is a party. Not sure why Iran is in the same boat but that revolution in 1978 is probably relevant.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface yes it is very interesting to read about it. It seems from more reading that US did not ratify because they feared Israel would count as a "racist regime" under the protocol?

Additionally, apparently the US also did not ratify
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Un...
which outlines rules under which civilian vessels in territorial waters (Strait of Hummus in this case) may be fired upon, among other things. Apparently this is considered "more legal" than bombing civvie infra under UNCLOS (Unc-loss ?!)

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@WandererUber @Terry @Paleface And the US (but not Iran) signed the predecessor of that document. UN international law is exactly as gay and talmudic as you'd expect from the fine folks who set it up.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface Yeah I mean that's most law isn't it. Doesn't really apply to whoever has the power to interpret it. But if international law is not a factor, then we have to fall back on moral arguments only. In my opinion it would be a tough position to argue for example that Iran may not close its territorial waters to foreign vessels, but the US may bomb civilian or even dual-use land infrastructure.
And as I read it, the UN law is more in line with what I would say, which is the opposite of that.

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@WandererUber @Terry @Paleface And now you're attacking an argument I wouldn't make.

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

1d

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface Oh I wasn't implying you would. I'm just saying that's obviously not true and I would definitely
>morally distinguish [bombing another country's civilian infrastructure] from a civilian merchant ship like the ones the Iranians are shooting missiles at.
by the fact of territorial authority. One is hostile action inside territory of another, the other is hostile action by state inside its territory

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

1d

@WandererUber @Terry @Paleface Barring atrocities like sinking ships without letting the crew escape, the ability of a nation to interdict commerce is determined by the responsible organization of its force and the reach of its guns. It was always thus until liberals charged in. Also, bridges are probably older and better-established military targets than, like, three-floor buildings.

Snidely_Whiplash

@Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital remote

1d

How about missiling a ship and machine-gunning sailors in the water, as the US Sec of War claimed the US Navy did when attacking merchant ships in international waters of the Gulf of Mexico?