• Eximius
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I dont know. Generally it gets a bit muddy at such a stage. Are they party to the war? Did they expressly forbid USA from using military bases to resupply from/attack Iran? Did Oman cushly stay silent and complicit playing both sides? Are trade ships that are trading with the enemy, not expressly and officially guaranteed by Oman not valid targets in a strait majorly controlled by Iran (even the Oman territorial waters are a bit silly once you take into account the geography)? (Not talking about people, but about infrastructure and supply chain)

    If anything, Iran, in its desperation, is fighting well against the superest most bigliest ultra fascist state in the making.

    • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Generally it gets a bit muddy at such a stage.

      I think international law is actually pretty clear, in general. You don’t get to shoot at every ship that moves.

      Are trade ships that are trading with the enemy, not expressly and officially guaranteed by Oman not valid targets

      Iran is shooting all the ships. It is pretty clear that “legality” is not a concern Iran has.

      If anything, Iran, in its desperation, is fighting well against the superest most bigliest ultra fascist state in the making.

      This seems to be the root. You see that Trump/USA is evil here, which it is. And then somehow conclude that Iran must be good, if Iran is fighting against Trump.

      Iran is evil too. Fucking evil. Killing innocent civilians deliberately and laughing at it evil.

      There is a trend of ignoring how evil some of the Muslim groupings in the Middle East are. That has got to stop. It almost seem like “white man’s burden” - as if people think Muslims don’t have agency to know right from wrong.

      • Brainsploosh
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        There’s this whole argument about World Policing being Bad ™. But even besides that:

        The US is also currently murdering, kidnapping and disappearing thousands of it’s citizens, so it’s not for the moral high ground they’re bombing civilian infrastructure.

        Besides, the war will almost certainly lead to more suffering, and probably also lives lost, as a consequence of the destruction, fear, oppression and power struggle following it. So it’s not for humanitarian reasons they’re disrupting international trade and relations.

        The US has also made it very clear it only intends to follow international law and treaties when it benefits them, as evidenced with Greenland, Venezuela, Cuba, trade wars, trade and protection treaty violations. So it’s not for any rules based order they’re planlessly and goallessly staging a billion dollar/day terror campaign.

        It seems the US is just exercising it’s might and terrorising the world because it wants to. I wonder how long before someone gets fed up with it…

        • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          Like, I am absolutely not blanket defending the US under Trump. That shit is straight out fascism. Nowhere have I said the US is acting morally or legally with regards to Iran.

          There are still some vestages of pre-fascist US in e.g. the US state department. So sometimes the US will actually justify their actions legally. So not literally every single thing the US does is illegal. But plenty of things are.

          But you are apparently defending Iran’s illegal behavior, by pointing to the US’s illegal behavior. That is not how ethics works… two wrong does not make one right. And it is kinda wild that people like you often end up defending the blatantly evil fundamentalist undemocratic terrorist Iran.

          • Brainsploosh
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            If you re-read my comment you’ll see that I’m nowhere defending Iran’s conduct, so let’s address that.

            When unilaterally attacked by a terrorist state neighbour supported by the largest military in the world, I do feel Iran has the moral right to use assymetric warfare to survive. Even more so when that doesn’t cause mass civilian casualty.

            Do I condone the oppression the Iranian government did before the war? No.

            Do I still believe Iran has the right to sovereignty? Definitely and absolutely.

            It is no business of the US to meddle in the political internalities of a country not a credible threat. And even less so at the behest of a rampaging genocidal state using terror to keep neighbours from intervening.

            To put it into a simplified analogy: are you arguing dishonestly putting words in my mouth? Yes. Does that give me the right to burn your house down? No.

            In the real world it’s both the US treating dishonestly and doing the burning though.

            • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 hours ago

              When unilaterally attacked by a terrorist state neighbour supported by the largest military in the world, I do feel Iran has the moral right to use assymetric warfare to survive.

              There is an argument here, if the asymmetric warfare was against the US or US allies. But Iran is attacking the whole world, including many innocents. Especially the blockade of fertilizer exports has the potential to kill countless innocents.

      • Wakmrow
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        What does international law say about assassinating heads of state

        What does international law say about bombing industrial infrastructure

        What does international law say about bombing hospitals and schools

      • 0x0@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        I was about to post an actual reply to this shitpost, but the effort just isnt worth it.

        As in the russian special military operation, the invading party is free to just take their ball and go home, but wont because “pride”. Womp womp

      • Eximius
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        I guess you’re right about the international law. But then again, it’s been out the window for a while.

        I didn’t write any conclusions about Iran regime being non evil. But looking at history, you’d be a fool not to see its instability rooted in US/Israel/UK domination goals.

        The excerpts from UN assemblies I saw, Iran was quite repetitive, but spoke much more eloquently than the US. Make of that what you will, in the age of ai slop.

        • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          you’d be a fool not to see its instability rooted in US/Israel/UK domination goals.

          Yes the US has fucked up bigly in Iraq and Iran. There is a pattern - fuck Republicans.

          But in many cases, the US has also created stability. The 1991 Gulf War was fundamentally a stability exercise - Iraq started that war by invading Kuwait. Likely Saddam would gladly have invaded Saudi Arabia, if the US had not enforced the status quo in the region.

          The US was the world’s policeman. Sometimes they did some shit, but sometimes they kept the peace. Over all, I think people were glad they were there. But keeping the peace involves force or the threat of force sometimes, and it seems to me that some people only see the violence or threat of violence, and not the peace created. As in the 1991 Gulf War, for example.

          Iran was quite repetitive, but spoke much more eloquently than the US.

          Iran’s political leadership has shown far more competence than Trump’s administration, no question. Trump apparently started this war without knowing that Iran would close the straight of Hormuz, which random people on the street would have known would happen. Trump’s administration is literally idiots - not just people I disagree with.

          • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 hours ago

            The US was the world’s policeman

            You know when people said that, it was derisive right? The US wasn’t elected to the role by some body at the UN. Americans decided themeselves it was their role, as history’s great exception, to decide matters across the globe.

            Also, hilarious to say the Gulf War was the good and just war and the Iraq war was a big fuck up, considering they were both the product of the same political dynasty. As if one did not inextricably lead to the other.

            • 8oow3291d@feddit.dk
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 hours ago

              You know when people said that, it was derisive right?

              Derisive for some people. Not for some others.

              Also, hilarious to say the Gulf War was the good and just war and the Iraq war was a big fuck up, considering they were both the product of the same political dynasty.

              What kind of bullshit argument is that? Bush I could have taken Baghdad but didn’t, because he was not an idiot and knew it would destabilize the Middle East. Bush II undid the decision of his father - that was the act of overthrowing the actions of his father, not some long term dynastical plan.

              Here is Cheney in 1994 describing everything that went wrong after taking Baghdad, which is why Bush I did not do so: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY

              As if one did not inextricably lead to the other.

              It didn’t. Clinton did not go to Baghdad, and Gore would not have done so. Because they were not idiots, would have listened to the experts saying it was incredibly stupid.

              • AppleTea@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 hour ago

                that was the act of overthrowing the actions of his father, not some long term dynastical plan.

                Yes, that’s how dynasties work. Inheriting political power produces stupid results.

                Also worth noting that we backed Saddam Hussein through the Iran-Iraq war. You can’t pick out this or that middle eastern conflict the US has been a part of and declare it “the good one”. We’ve been meddling for more than half a century. It’s silly to act though each individual event just happens, as if shorn free from the consequences of the prior one.