[DaedalusII]

I have to call out this disingenuous mob like language which is basically saying "because this person served in the military of a UN Security Council member, it is justifiable to murder them in the street years into their retirement"

how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?

by the same way of thinking, it would be completely justified for people from many countries to show up at random US service members houses and shoot them in the street , or perhaps attack their embassies, commit suicide bombings...

[Dylan16807]

No, personal responsibility for war crimes with double digit casualties is not the same as just being in the same military force in any capacity.

Though if your local UN security council member is known for committing war crimes then you probably shouldn't serve in its military.

[applfanboysbgon]

You're so close to getting it! It turns out that terrorists don't hate Americans because they're jealous of the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world, they hate Americans because Americans commit crimes against their people.

I said nothing about whether it was justified, simply noted the state of reality in which you should probably avoid doing harmful things to others if you would like to not motivate them to harm you in return. Americans would absolutely benefit from doing fewer things to harm other countries if they would like to be targeted by fewer terrorists.

[locknitpicker]

> how is a submarine commander committing war crimes?

News reports from both Russia and Ukraine stated he was the commander of K-148 Krasnodar, a submarine that at the time of his command engaged in missile attacks on Ukrainian cities.

From a BBC article:

> Ukrainian media has said he could have been in command of the vessel when it carried out a missile attack on the Ukrainian city of Vinnytsia in July 2022, which killed 28 people, including three children.

Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.

[roysting]

Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran? You imply it would be any military officer, anywhere, at any time, retired or not.

[ta20240528]

For active soldiers, yes - kill them, any time, anywhere. That's what "at war" means. Its not a policing operation.

[gzread]

This thought - of being legitimately killed at any time anywhere - should scare people. Good! If the reality of war scares you, don't start wars.

[locknitpicker]

> Who do you see as the “legitimate military target” in America due to America’s war of aggression on Iran?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Also, even Trump himself, when asked about the possibility of Iran conducting attacks on US soil, stated the following:

> "Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die."

So what point do you think you're making?

[roysting]

I am not at all sure what point you are trying to make, because I was not making any point. I was just asking a question to, I believe, suss out a point that is seemingly far closer to what you are saying than not. I was asking the question to make the person think, follow the logic to at least a a few steps, because the mentality that was being expressed is extremely reckless and dangerous, let alone criminally illegal, i.e., assassinating military officers hors de combat.

The problem humanity now faces is that one side in this conflict is extremely psychopathic and narcissistis that will do anything and everything to retain control and power.

[applfanboysbgon]

Correct. The US assassinated Iran's leader and dozens of their military officers. Do you seriously believe Iran would somehow be in the wrong to kill any American officer it can?

It is eerie how closely the American mentality parallels that of the German regime. "The Nazis entered this war on the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everybody and nobody was going to bomb them."

[roysting]

I understand your sentiment, but all parties, including the Israeli state are signatories and have ratified the Geneva Convention, making the actions of Israel and it's American attack oaf (full disclosure, I am American, whatever that even still means) war crimes, and technically based on the precedent from the Nurenberg trial, makes the USA and arguably its accessory, Israel responsible and guilty of all war crimes due to initiating the illegal war of aggression, the "mother of all war crimes".

We are facing a far greater calamity than I get the sense most really have any understand for. Effectively all international institutions have exposed themselves as some variation of incompetent, shams, husks, utterly ineffectual, and even downright evil (e.g., condemning Iran essentially for being attacked) because the subordinated, pathetic vassal dungeon gimp countries and institutions are afraid and/or seek continued favor and the approval of their suzerain master/King.

[applfanboysbgon]

I get the sense this is coming as news to you. But it was always this way, going back as far as international law has really been a thing.

The Nuremberg trials were a glorified kangaroo court, so obviously a sham that even a US Supreme Court justice voiced their opposition. They made a mockery of the concept of law, trying people for laws that did not exist at the time the alleged crimes were committed, and more to the point, even for war crimes that the US and Allies themselves also committed and did not prosecute themselves for. The concept of "war crimes" has never been anything more than a thin veil over winner's justice, dressed up nice and pretty to seem less barbaric. And, to be fair, the Nazis were unfathomably barbaric and earned barbaric treatment - I doubt many would particularly object to summary execution of high-ranking Nazis after the war. But the US turned its retribution into a massive propaganda coup about international justice, upon which it placed itself as the ruler of.

The US, of course, exempted itself from international justice. Ever. Not only does it not punish its own war criminals, it refuses to ratify any treaties like participation in the ICC that would give international accountability to its own soldiers for war crimes, and even further still, it signed into law an act that authorizes the invasion of the Netherlands if an American were ever to be tried at the Hague. Whatever you thought international justice was, for your entire life, has been a propaganda-laden sham. It never existed. The only thing that ever existed was winner's justice. The winners kill the losers at their pleasure. That's all it ever was. In the sense that there's a calamity, it's not because of the collapse of any international institutions, because they were always an illusion made to benefit the powerful.

[veltas]

> Also, it's clear that a military officer is obviously a legitimate military target in a war.

Former

[locknitpicker]

> Former

According to reports, he was the commander of the submarine when it was conducting bombing missions on civilian targets in Ukraine.

What possibly compels you to believe your "former" qualifier has any relevance?

[necovek]

According to the quote above, he "could have been at the helm", and his family has claimed he hasn't.

Something, something, due process.

[veltas]

Relevant to the accuracy of quote