A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Kegsbreath feeling so smug killing more unarmed and defenseless people in boats.
Wow that's fucked up on multiple levels.
to attack a literally defenseless warship ... Could you not have, you know, boarded it instead? Forced it to surrender? Feels like at that point you can just threaten to do what you did and they would have to comply.
if you've seen the released periscope footage of the attack, and realize that that explosion was fully from the torpedo and not from an ammo store blowing, it makes it look that much more like an intentional massacre. Is there really no smaller munition on board that sub that can be used to disable a defenseless target?
If they had no intelligence of the ammunition situation (doubt) it could be risky to try to board a warship. Not that it justifies anything, just aside from piracy boarding enemy warships isn't really a thing anymore as far as I'm aware.
If they had no intelligence of the ammunition situation (doubt) it could be risky to try to board a warship.
I mean, there's literally no way the US didn't know it was on the way back from an ammo-less exercise. The Indian naval exercises were very public, with 74 countries participating.
The US frequently attends these exercises, and left this one on Feb 26, 2026.
Profound incompetence seems like a possibility tbh. They absolutely should have known about it but it sure seems like they're basically just fucking around, not taking things seriously. So I'd definitely believe that they saw an Iranian warship pull up and were like "WTF is that doing there? Kill it!".
I don't think that should excuse their actions, but it does seem like a believable chain of events.
Like a bunch of drunk rednecks driving around in their truck shooting at road signs.
Whos to say they didn't pack some munitions with them anyway? Without another nation checking the ship you just have to take their word for it.
I mean fair point, I can't find any info on whether or not anyone verifies that the ships are unloaded or if it's self reported. And it does seem unlikely that a nation would let another country inspect it's warship.
More unlikey than letting dozens of armed warships into your seas, without any controls?
Also a fair point
Please note: in no way am I attempting to be an apologist here. I’m just trying to point out that some parts of this story are not terribly believable, and that attack subs have very particular capabilities and constraints that they operate with. The order was shitty. But at the end of the day, it was an enemy vessel, and the sub’s CO got an order to sink it.
Why the hell would you sail a warship around without any munitions…?
Because they were invited to an international naval exercise that required them to be unarmed...
It would said without munitions because that's what it was asked to do as a GUEST in a third-party country.
Just because Americans act like children, doesn't mean adults don't exists.
This is all so stupid
Disarmed doesn't mean 'it has no weapons' it means weapons were unloaded or otherwise 'disarmed'.
Wtf are you even saying?
Point three is just you freestyling thoughts now. I just read of the Laconia Incendent and besides how fucking grim all of this is, ya, there actually are more honorable procedures and lengths to go through, other than straight up and purposely killing everyone. But that‘s just not how the US rolls.
I might be missing something big, but this doesn't seem like a degenerate course of action. I think this mainly because
Overall, I could understand the condemnation for the attacks from the perspective that the US shouldn't be fighting an illegal war, but if you concede that point, the attack of an enemy military vessel irregardless of its current capabilities is a fully ok course of action.
Sounds like the perfect moment to attack it.
I think it's illegal to do so without officially declaring war first but whatever international law is fake anyway