Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

yockeypuck 🔴

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

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

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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

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

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

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

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

@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

@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

@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

@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.

Replying to @WandererUber@poa.st

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

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

Replies

Replying to @yockeypuck@poa.st

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

@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

Replying to @WandererUber@poa.st

yockeypuck 🔴

@yockeypuck@poa.st remote

@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.

Replying to @yockeypuck@poa.st

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

@yockeypuck @Terry @Paleface >bridges are probably older and better-established military targets than, like, three-floor buildings.
history of castles (moats, drawbridge, often multi-story) aside, we were talking bridges vs boats. If we are widening that scope, the US didn't just attack bridges, they attacked schools and desalination plants and so on.

>ability
>determined by force
It's a question of frame.
in pre-liberal morality, it's not
>the guy who scrubs the head's fault
it's the captains, because he put his crew in harms way.

US is legitimizing their war from liberal morality, so there bombing civilian infrastructure is their fault because as they say, the civilians of Iran have no say in, and are therefore not responsible for, Iranian government activity. Punishing them for something they have no control over is not moral by their own admission. It delegitimizes their own framing to do it. People say this.

to be fair, my prior argument was not really solid because Iran struck ships inside Oman's territorial waters, not theirs.

Replying to @yockeypuck@poa.st

Snidely_Whiplash

@Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital remote

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?

Replying to @Snidely_Whiplash@nicecrew.digital

Wanderer atop the sea of clouds or whatever

@WandererUber@poa.st remote

@Snidely_Whiplash @Paleface @Terry @yockeypuck that's out of scope