It seems like there are more questions surrounding the sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena.
-
It seems like there are more questions surrounding the sinking of the Iranian frigate IRIS Dena. The ship may have not have been carrying any ammunition, as it was taking part in a joint exercise/foreign visit to India. The US had been a participant in those exercises and pulled out shortly before they began. So, they would have known India's terms for participation and that the Iranian frigate was unarmed.
That it was unarmed seems backed by the lack of apparent secondary explosions after the initial torpedoing of the ship. The US submarine (whose name and thus commander are thus far unknown) did not stop to conduct search and rescue efforts after it was apparent the ship was sinking. The only legal justification for not doing so might have been a line of argument that they might still have been capable of offensive action against the sub had it surfaced.
-
That it was unarmed seems backed by the lack of apparent secondary explosions after the initial torpedoing of the ship. The US submarine (whose name and thus commander are thus far unknown) did not stop to conduct search and rescue efforts after it was apparent the ship was sinking. The only legal justification for not doing so might have been a line of argument that they might still have been capable of offensive action against the sub had it surfaced.
But, if the US Navy knew both the location of this vessel and its unarmed status and sunk it anyways and decided to not pick up survivors, then it seems like this might very well constitute a war crime.
-
But, if the US Navy knew both the location of this vessel and its unarmed status and sunk it anyways and decided to not pick up survivors, then it seems like this might very well constitute a war crime.
Nazi U boat commanders during World War II had more honor than the US in its conduct here. I'm being completely serious.
Nazi U boats would torpedo a vessel and once confirmed it was sinking, they'd surface and begin rescue operations and actively broadcast their position to allied forces, stating that they were now operating under red cross rules. This was largely ended because of something known as the Laconia incident.
-
Nazi U boat commanders during World War II had more honor than the US in its conduct here. I'm being completely serious.
Nazi U boats would torpedo a vessel and once confirmed it was sinking, they'd surface and begin rescue operations and actively broadcast their position to allied forces, stating that they were now operating under red cross rules. This was largely ended because of something known as the Laconia incident.
Basically, what happened is a German sub torpedoed a vessel, began rescue operations after broadcasting it's location and then headed off on the surface with tons of rescued passengers clinging to its hull. A US airplane spots the submarine and radios in and reports that the submarine appears to be overloaded with survivors. US command orders it to destroy the submarine even thought the submarine is clearly operating in a non-combatant, protected role.
-
Basically, what happened is a German sub torpedoed a vessel, began rescue operations after broadcasting it's location and then headed off on the surface with tons of rescued passengers clinging to its hull. A US airplane spots the submarine and radios in and reports that the submarine appears to be overloaded with survivors. US command orders it to destroy the submarine even thought the submarine is clearly operating in a non-combatant, protected role.
The sub is basically forced to crash dive and a whole lot of people who would have survived died as a result. The German high command (Dönitz) issues an order basically forbidding Nazi U-boats from picking up survivors for the rest of the war. This order was brought up at the Nuremberg trial and it was supposed to be some sort of deep indictment of the German Navy.
-
The sub is basically forced to crash dive and a whole lot of people who would have survived died as a result. The German high command (Dönitz) issues an order basically forbidding Nazi U-boats from picking up survivors for the rest of the war. This order was brought up at the Nuremberg trial and it was supposed to be some sort of deep indictment of the German Navy.
Instead, the Nazis got to explain in detail why the order had been issued: that the US kept shooting U-boats WHICH HAD DECLARED THEIR POSITIONS and were clearly carrying survivors under agreed upon humanitarian flags of truce.
-
But, if the US Navy knew both the location of this vessel and its unarmed status and sunk it anyways and decided to not pick up survivors, then it seems like this might very well constitute a war crime.
@Infoseepage given the fact they shared an exercise window... perfidy and other war crimes suit the nazis currently in power in the US (the same country that used a military plane painted to appear as a civilian aircraft against "Venezuelan drug boats", the same that were into negotiations with a country, close to a deal, only to attack them next)
-
@Infoseepage given the fact they shared an exercise window... perfidy and other war crimes suit the nazis currently in power in the US (the same country that used a military plane painted to appear as a civilian aircraft against "Venezuelan drug boats", the same that were into negotiations with a country, close to a deal, only to attack them next)
@jt_rebelo I have no issues whatsoever characterizing Trump and Hegseth as war criminals deserving of prosecution for their acts alongside the military personnel who carried out their orders.
-
@jt_rebelo I have no issues whatsoever characterizing Trump and Hegseth as war criminals deserving of prosecution for their acts alongside the military personnel who carried out their orders.
@Infoseepage one can wish upon a star...
-
But, if the US Navy knew both the location of this vessel and its unarmed status and sunk it anyways and decided to not pick up survivors, then it seems like this might very well constitute a war crime.
@Infoseepage If in doubt, the safe assumption is that the US has committed a war crime since this has been our pattern and the stated policy preference of Trump and Hegseth.
-
Instead, the Nazis got to explain in detail why the order had been issued: that the US kept shooting U-boats WHICH HAD DECLARED THEIR POSITIONS and were clearly carrying survivors under agreed upon humanitarian flags of truce.
One last point I'd like to make. Lets give the US Navy sub commander the benefit of the doubt. Lets believe that they didn't know that the ship didn't have munitions (that is a presumption at this point). At what point would a reasonable person have said "Okay, this ship no longer presents any sort of credible threat to us and we've received distress calls from survivors. It is our duty to rescue them?"
-
One last point I'd like to make. Lets give the US Navy sub commander the benefit of the doubt. Lets believe that they didn't know that the ship didn't have munitions (that is a presumption at this point). At what point would a reasonable person have said "Okay, this ship no longer presents any sort of credible threat to us and we've received distress calls from survivors. It is our duty to rescue them?"
I don't know at what point I would have decided the ship could no longer do me harm, but what we do know is that the submarine stayed in the area while the ship was sinking and did not attempt rescue efforts. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Navy responded to the distress call and pulled people from the water...because the ship had completely sunk by this point.
-
I don't know at what point I would have decided the ship could no longer do me harm, but what we do know is that the submarine stayed in the area while the ship was sinking and did not attempt rescue efforts. Meanwhile, the Sri Lankan Navy responded to the distress call and pulled people from the water...because the ship had completely sunk by this point.
We know these things because of statement made by Sri Lanka and because Hegseth viewed this as an opportunity to brag about being the first time a US submarine had gotten to torpedo anybody since WW2.
-
We know these things because of statement made by Sri Lanka and because Hegseth viewed this as an opportunity to brag about being the first time a US submarine had gotten to torpedo anybody since WW2.
If you haven't seen the video, it is pretty dramatic. It also includes images of the ship in its final moments, moments in which the US sub had every opportunity and duty to search for survivors. The ship was clearly not a threat at this point and there were no other documented threats in the area, but the US sub did not stop to pull survivors from the waters. No, it was the Sri Lankans who did that later. Perhaps more lives could have been saved.
-
If you haven't seen the video, it is pretty dramatic. It also includes images of the ship in its final moments, moments in which the US sub had every opportunity and duty to search for survivors. The ship was clearly not a threat at this point and there were no other documented threats in the area, but the US sub did not stop to pull survivors from the waters. No, it was the Sri Lankans who did that later. Perhaps more lives could have been saved.
IMO, this was a war crime and it should be referred for international prosecution.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
