War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now • Hacker News Board

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#41

Post by jst1fthsdys » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 5:48 PM UTC

hawkice wrote: post #40

jst1fthsdys wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quick question, who were the aggressors in that war? What had they done previously that might have warranted it?

The aggressors not being the targets of the firebombing is central to the concerns here. They weren't military targets (largely).

It was total war though, and they were the aggressors who had slaughtered millions of civilians previously. The Germans and Japanese got what they deserved.

Iran and their people are not the aggressors here. They do not deserve it.

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#42

Post by OutOfHere » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 5:59 PM UTC

wak90 wrote: post #36

OutOfHere wrote: post #27

If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing. Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?

Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure

Huh. It is not entirely in Iran's territorial water. It is partially in Oman's water. Iran is attempting to control what does not belong to it.

Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_strait

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#43

Post by nickvec » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #27

If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing. Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?

Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed.

> “better than carpet bombing”

The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets.

> “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?”

Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#44

Post by misano » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:57 PM UTC

jst1fthsdys wrote: post #38

misano wrote: post #31

[flagged]

> The human rights abuses committed by the Islamic Republic regime What about the human rights abuses by the democratic regime of ISUS? Do we deserve some war crimes too?

It's like, oh, we shouldn't do anything against Hitler because our army might commit war crimes. The reason for the opponents of war is war crimes? Can we have a war without committing crimes? If it's not possible, then the question boils down to whether it's worth it? And you have to throw the moral abacus at whether war, with its possibilities, is morally preferable or the tragedies that happen without it. The Islamic Republic regime is the most evil government the world has ever seen.

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#45

Post by exolymph » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 7:30 PM UTC

spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people. But people in the USA should realise this: An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA. Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classma…

> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people.

flags are user-driven

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#46

Post by OutOfHere » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 8:24 PM UTC

nickvec wrote: post #43

OutOfHere wrote: post #27

If I am not mistaken, it is not a war crime as per the Geneva Convention. It could be a war crime under Additional Protocol I (1977) or the Rome Statute (1998) but the US hasn't ratified these. It clearly is a last choice reaction by the US, and it's better than the alternative of carpet bombing. Tell me, why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers of other countries?

Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed. > “better than carpet bombing” The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets. > “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?” Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge.

Customary law is not formal law. Trump flies above the bedrock.

The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?

Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#47

Post by wak90 » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 9:04 PM UTC

OutOfHere wrote: post #42

wak90 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not see the difference between controlling territorial waters and bombing civilian water infrastructure

Huh. It is not entirely in Iran's territorial water. It is partially in Oman's water. Iran is attempting to control what does not belong to it. Moreover, under the law of the sea, the Strait of Hormuz is as an international strait. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_strait

Lol the US didn't ratify that either

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#48

Post by nh23423fefe » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 9:23 PM UTC

exolymph wrote: post #45

spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people. But people in the USA should realise this: An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA. Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classma…

> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people. flags are user-driven

No you dont get it. A conspiracy is afoot.

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#49

Post by dataflow » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 9:38 PM UTC

nickvec wrote: post #35

dataflow wrote: post #30

Why in the world is this flagged?

Just guessing, but I assume because it’s arguably off-topic as defined by the HN guidelines. I don’t think it should be flagged, though. “Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, or celebrities, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.”

This being evidence of an interesting new phenomenon is literally the entire premise of the blog post though. And it sure as hell didn't look like it was covered on the main news headlines; I know I only heard about it because of HN. The author is pretty clearly claiming this is a new phenomenon literally in the title itself!

Re: War Crimes Seem to Be Official US Policy Now

#50

Post by dang » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 11:20 PM UTC

spiderfarmer wrote: post #21

This thread will get flagged and disappear, probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises just how bad this reflects on the USA and its people. But people in the USA should realise this: An entire generation is growing up now, who hate, dislike or at least distrust the USA. Where I have the feeling the US will come to its senses, eventually, hopefully; my children tell me that they and all their classma…

> probably because at least someone in HN leadership realises

Lol - actually because at most no one in HN leadership realised the thread even existed.

Here's a tip for improved accuracy on HN speculation: if your speculation implicitly assumes moderator omniscience, it's probably wrong.

We don't moderate HN based on what reflects badly or goodly on $country or $people. We're just trying to have an internet forum that doesn't suck, i.e. remains interesting and hovers semi-stably above internet median.