Iranian boats attempted to seize British tanker

Where did Giftdone say anything but that? When you say that it has nothing to do with delivering 'justice by punishment' you are not saying what Giftdone did but the very real intent in Israel's Dahiya doctrine. I remember reading early texts on this and the Israeli author was completely aware that the disproportionality the Dahiya doctrine was suggesting was against International Law. The hope was that the US would start doing it too and so it would be seen as right. I think here you are not talking about what Giftdone said but rather trying to justify what Israel does.

 

The principle of proportionality in war is a principle of international law. That doesn't make it identical to the principle of proportionality in national criminal law.

I know it's hard to let go of the oh-so-used-and-abused argument against US and allies regarding their so-called disproportionate response to apparently minor aggression. But the cold, heartless reality, is that a response is disproportionate in war only when civilian causalities don't measure up against military gain. Blowing up a rather harmless (in the given circumstances) boat with soldiers for harassing a civilian tanker is not a disproportionate response. It's certainly not recommended, maybe even cruel, but it's not disproportionate.

In a debate such as this is quite important to understand the terms and use them correctly. Otherwise you might get a "but but but I know you have a capability for rational thought so you better use it" kind of reply yourself

 

No genocide in Yemen, the Houthis started the war and our now facing the consequences, they can give up any time they like. Again, the sanctions were on Saddam and to lift them all he had to do was comply. Still, after the liberation that wasn't his problem any more.

 

No but if you look at the 80s tanker war and the recent attacks none of the tankers exploded in a ball of flame?

 

Yes, he allied himself with the Tudeh party and increasingly leaned towards Moscow. I said BETTER the Shah than the Ayatollah.

 

You jumped into a conversation without fully understanding the context - your understanding of the rule of proportionality is flawed - and you have mischaracterized the situation being discussed and the issues being discussed.

1) The British actions were a precedent setting violation of the international law of the seas, it was an illegal act and therefor classified as piracy.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-calls-uk-seizure-its-tanker-maritime-piracy/5682850?print=1

While these were armed personnel that seized the Iranian ship "marines even" - these are not soldiers engaged in war against Iran - as they are acting in a civilian capacity.

2) as per the above the Iranian vessels were also armed but acting in a civilian capacity - Your characterization of these vessels as Soldiers - and the situation as War - is a false characterization.

Regardless of how you want to characterize the Iranian action - it was no different than the British action.

3) The idea that a ship should launch anti ship missiles against the customs officials (civilians) of a nation state in a non war situation is absurd and disproportionate.

4) If the Iranian ship had launched cruise missiles at the British vessels you would be freaking out and calling for revenge or justice. Your position is then completely hypocritical.

 

Nope.

You can find the word "gook" entered in U.S. Navy ship's logs that were in the Mediterranean during the Barbary Pirates War.

In Joseph Walker's personal journal during the Mexican America War (1846) Joseph Walker mentions when Capt. Gillespie (USMC) when reporting to Commodore Stockton (USN) in San Diego when he said "we came across some gooks last night."

During WW ll U.S. Marines referred to the islands in the Southwestern Pacific as "gook islands" not in reference to the Melanesian natives or Japanese soldiers but the jungle, the heat, humidity, mud, rain that was completely strange to these Marines.
As the war moved into the Central Pacific where there were coral atolls the phrase fell out of use until the Vietnam War.

At :42 in the video an American soldier asking a U.S. Marine what the love life was like on Guadalcanal referred to Guadalcanal as "gook island."



It was a white beard scratching liberal in 1973 who never served in the military who decided that the U.S. military slang word "gook" was politically incorrect and a derogatory term.

During the Vietnam War the Korean Marines of the Blue Dragons 2nd ROK Marine Brigade also referred to Vietnamese as gooks.

 

So what. This is never going to be a ground war between Israel and Iran. That makes your comparison totally irrelevant.

 

Didn't Iran DENY that they did it? What a joke they are!

 

Re the EU meeting on Iran today

https://www.euronews.com/2019/07/15/eu-says-iran-nuclear-deal-still-alive

I do not get where the EU believes that when it has not delivered as promised and the US has reneged on the deal it has any voice to say on whether Iran has or not. The EU will need to start making decisions on whether it wants to be the US poddle and hasten WW3 or start having some integrity....but this saying that Iran needs to be challenged for beginning as they say to provoke rather than break the deal when they have not kept it is like 1984 double talk. You do not get a 'deal' where only one side is expected to keep it...and netanyahu has the aggressor back to front.

 

https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-uk-complicit-saudi-acts-genocide-yemen/5661830
85,000 children have been starved to death by deliberately blocking the access to food and water by the US and the coalition supported by the US. That is a genocide.

Starting a war is of no excuse to go and commit a genocide.

Not cooperating is of no excuse to go and commit a genocide.


Nothing excuses is for a genocide.

 

You go source me they shot a missile at a tanker.

 

Not seeing a source.

 

Intelligence still matters.

 

I gave you the definition of the rule of proportionality as published by the International Committee of the Red Cross. It's their understanding, not mine.

Here's more:
http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/proportionality-in-attacks-ihl

1. Globalresearch, of the "North Korea, a Land of Human Achievement, Love and Joy" fame? That globalreseach?

The rules of maritime warfare are detailed in the San Remo Manual. It's customary international law. Unlike those who claim to cherish - and demand respect for - international law, but never seem to know exactly what the fabled international law says or what its sources are, I never make claims about international law without checking with reliable - meaning not globalresearch-ish - sources.

Here's the San Remo manual:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/560?OpenDocument

Now I'm waiting for a link to a reliable site detailing the international law that explicitly prohibits actions like the seizure of the Iranian ship by the British.

2. I'm not sure about the civilian capacity. Those were armed members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard. How would you characterize seizure of civilian ship in international waters if not an act of war? Piracy, maybe?

3. Customs officials? Err...let's agree to disagree on this one.

4. You don't know how I react to different situations.

 

What genocide? No one is trying to wipe the Houthis out, just trying to defeat them in the war they started.

 

The information I gave you in the link was both reliable and correct. The link I gave you did characterize the seizure of a civilian ship in international waters as an act of piracy - obviously if this rose to the level of blockade (which is doesn't) it would be an act of war.

The problem with your narrative is that regardless of how we characterize the action of the Iranians - The British action was exactly the same - an armed group (marines in the case of the Brits) seizing a civilian ship in international waters. It was the Brits who struck first.

Neither action was legal under the rules of the Sea.

What was being addressed in the initial post you responded to - was whether or not such actions merit responding with anti ship missiles.

My comment is 1) what is good for goose is good for gander and 2) this is a rash and unnecessary escalation - the reasons we have "rules of the Sea" - and general rules with respect to proportionality is so we can avoid rash and unnecessary escalation.

There is no doubt that the action of the Brits will be ruled illegal. We can't have nations running around seizing the ships of other nations in international waters on the basis of some national agenda - and this not descend into chaos. This is why we have international bodies.

Do you not realize that this action was "unprecedented" in modern times - it is something that is just not done - it amounts to throwing out the rule book.

Perhaps you think that it is OK to throw out the rule book - and you are welcome to your opinion - I just do not share it.

 

No, I don't think an attack with anti ship missiles would've been an appropriate response in the given circumstances.

We can't possibly continue this conversation unless what you call "the rule book" is clearly defined and the list of rules available.

 

Well - it was use of anti ship missiles that the poster I was responding to was supporting. I don't have time right now to look up the international rules of the sea - perhaps later. It should seem obvious though - that a nation is not supposed to seize the merchant vessels of another nation without legitimate cause- I gave you some of the piracy rules previously - and described why legitimate cause did not exist.

 

So it would take what, 60 seconds longer, before they're wiped out by a daisy cutter or something similar? It seems you don't understand the speed at which rockets travel or how effectively they can hit their targets.

 

The Shah was bringing the Iranian people into the modern world, and doing an effective job, while the Ayatollah, that lover of 'animal husbandry', tried to take them back to the seventh century.

Do the people of Iran really want to be ruled by primitive religious fanatics rather than determining their own futures and how they want to live their lives?

 

Other wealthy Arab nations couldn't help their brothers and sisters in Yemen? Do the feel the same about them as they do about the Palestinian Muslims?

 

That would certainly suit terrorist nations who place little value on human life and I can see why they'd want a rule like this.. However one warning to not repeat an attack should be enough. Otherwise a disproportionate and effective response would be legitimate and that sort of activity would stop.

 

I think it was a good thing the Allies didn't use this theory of proportionality during D-Day, The Battle Of The Bulge, or any battle during WWII. Instead they wanted to win, not play tit for tat.

 

What are you talking about ? The terrorist nations did not invent the rules around proportionality .. and they are not big fans of the geneva convention, the rule of law, and so on. The actions of terrorists are shown to be evil by such rules .. so why on earth would this suit these nations.

Your logic is discombobulated and backwards.