I'm not the guy who responded to you, but “only western people have morals, everyone else just cares about how it looks” is pretty much what you tried to imply.
And before you start on me, yes - I'm able to "think", and no, I'm not a "troll"
If its not what you wanted to imply, then perhaps you'd be better served at owning up & clarifying, rather than insulting others who merely pointed out what you originally wrote.
And on a general note (not specifically or only you), I'm somewhat amused (in a morbid sense) at the sheer predictability of some of the "oh no, don't you dare try to impugn any moral superiority to that lot over there, vs us westerners" reactions.
Refreshing to see how even after a multi year ongoing genocide, kidnappings other countries presidents, and triple-tap bombing little girls elementary schools, westerners still feel they own the "moral high ground" (wherever that is anymore ...)
My first (vic20) had 3.5KB of ram. When I added a whopping 8KB memory expansion cartridge, I genuinely wondered if I could possibly get any of my BASIC programs to use it all.
And when I upgraded from tapes to the 1541 floppy drive (5.25" floppies), it was like "thats it - I have INFINITE possibilities now"
OK, the usual half-baked Islamophobic propaganda, with all the usual dog whistles of that fake bandwagon. So drearily predictable. Keep on shouting at the wall.
Oh come on. Now you're just parroting ignorant tropes. Actual students of history will inform you that, especially per the standards of the day (as any state should be judged), Arab Muslim states were probably THE MOST tolerant of their time.
As evidenced by how many different Christian denominations (more than in Europe) still existed throughout West Asia, under direct Arab Muslim rule, for over a MILLENIA.
Denied basic rights? Basic rights to minority Christian, Jewish & Zoroastrian groups was ENSHRINED in the very makeup of these states. Leaders of these communities had official roles & responsibilities reserved for them.
You simply don't know what you're talking about. You're taking a modern day story about "Arabs" & "Muslims", which is predominantly the result of 100 years of subjugation & being broken up by the West (& having Western vassals & elites imposed as ruling classes), added to the need to create unsavory impressions of them amongst Western populations in order to justify that.
And you're taking this mess & overlaying it over the previous 1300 years, without a single regard for the truth. Seriously, go get a genuine history book, or talk to a history professor who knows about the Arab & Muslim world, and then curl up in embarrassment...
You're making rather sweeping generalizations. "Arabs" have, for most of the last 1400 years, been part of 3 MASSIVE states, which spanned from the farthest Atlantic coast of Africa to parts of what is now Pakistan. Not alliances. Actual single states.
Thats the very opposite of parochialism, xenophobia, suspicion or inward societal thinking (however one wants to describe it)
Amidst the destruction of all that SHARED history, and the arbitrary Sykes-Picot jigsaw imposed on "the Arab world", falling back to more local structures is an obvious, and in the grand scheme of things, temporary, defensive mechanism.
The very fact that despite 100 years of Western imposed Sykes-Picot madness, West Asia is still an intricate mosaic of multiple groups - that shows that traditionally the Arabs are WELL CAPABLE of working with those not in their, as you put it, "in group".
The Indian caste system, aka apartheid on steroids, is a horrid example which makes your point. You should have stopped there
I echo your sentiments. Much of the 'Murika 'Murika bluster even on this thread is so childishly unreal (as if from a MAGA wet dream parallel universe) that it almost doesn't rankle anymore. One feels that even they don't believe their own propaganda anymore, and are still shouting it to somehow "will" it into existence ...
Are you deliberately trying to misrepresent what I have said across multiple posts? The war crime was not the sinking of the ship.
That was a cowardly act (unarmed vessel), but not strictly a war crime.
The ACTUAL war crime was the immediate refusal to render any aid to the sunken sailors. How many times do I have to repeat that line? Shall I bold it for you? And the fact that the ship was ALONE and UNARMED removed any pretence that the US sub would have been in danger by doing so.
I repeatedly mention the Geneva Convention & the fact that the same principle is written into the official US naval doctrines (so its US law as well), and yet you're still barking up the wrong branch.
If you're going to refute my argument, then please refute my ACTUAL argument, and not the strawman version you've concocted.
I have explained why, multiple times. You just don't want to accept it (fine, this will be determined at Nuremberg 2,0, not by you or me, here)
The sub knew it was clear of any Iranian guns, for over 100 miles in every direction, once it had sunk the only (unarmed) Iranian asset within 100 miles of it. Thats not the same as being within (or close to) Iranian territory.
Hence, the lack of threat, as per the established laws of naval warfare, neccesitate some attempt at helping survivors. The sub was in the immediate vicinity of the ship. Not 800 miles away firing a cruise missile.
To still maintain that, even in that situation, there's still some theoretical threat means that you're effectively trying to say that in NO conceivable situation do the established laws of naval warfare apply, in practical terms. For anyone, anywhere, ever.
In any case, this is all an academic exercise. In this world order, no laws - international, military, or common decency - apply to the US or its chosen allies.
Justice will have to be served the old fashioned way.
They didn't have to pick them up. They could have surfaced (remember, it was KNOWN that there was no threat) and tossed out a few inflatable life rafts.
It was proven in court that even the Nazi German submarines made good faith efforts to rescue drowning sailors, and they only stopped when one u-boat was sunk (or damaged?) by a US plane while it was rescuing US sailors (after which, the German navy gave out orders forbiding the practice).
That ship was involved in naval exercises at the invitation of the host navy, India.
That ship was unarmed. Nothing unusual there - that was the original plan for the joint navy drills. A large complement of the crew was A BRASS BAND!
The Indian's (and this has been formally confirmed since) communicated to the Americans that this was an UNARMED ship which was about to leave Indian territorial waters on its way home.
So the Americans KNEW where the ship was (they were told) and KNEW it was completely unarmed.
And they sunk it anyway, and refused to pick up any survivors.
Thats a crystal clear WAR CRIME. The kind which is writ large in western history books for 80 years, condemning the conduct of the Nazi Germany submarine units.
Hmm, interesting. HN has long been a site dominated by Zionists, and that was reflected in the type of commentary here. Your post, and the 3 others wh8ch responded to you, are clearly bemoaning the fact that even on this bastion of your world view, you're getting strong pushback.
I guess that's what years of widely publicized genocide, plus illegal wars of aggression (lost count by now - Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Lebanon again, etc, etc), gets you.
People are waking up, and some are not afraid to push back publicly. Even on your perceived "stomping grounds".
No wonder this doesn't compute for you, and you have to appeal to a higher authority.
Its a big world. And it's waking up. You can't censor everybody, everywhere, all of the time.
Have fun. Over and out.