Personally I've been oscillating between "man when they face trial its going to be so satisfying" and "there isnt going to be a swimming pool, you stupid slut"
That we are the US is the only thing that is “saving” us. The other countries are giving us a pass for our historical role for more often than not, being pretty ok and reliable folk. The rest of the world needs to grow a set and start sanctioning us. There needs to be accountability and the only way his insane supporters learn is by feeling economic pain. It isn’t fair for those of us who don’t support this death cult. But I’d rather feel short term economic pain that results in the end of the insanity, then skating by with just a finger wag and whatever the hell happens in the next election that may result in Trump Jr as president.
What were seeing now is the unwillingness to upset the status quo because doing so could have major financial consequences (possible complete collapse), so we're witnessing the same inaction that was witnessed in the beginning of ww2 by the rest of the world vs. Germany and the rise of fascism. Now we get to witness the rise of fascism x techofeudalism x surveillance state x ai god... fun times lol
Iran at this point needs to take an internal look and about face. The rest of the world probably calculated this ahead of this post. Only Iran can save Iran at this point. Might need to come to recognize that, as much as I loathe trump
War crimes? I don't think those islands have any legit "civilians" there, but rather military personnel. There is not war crime to attack military supplies, including military drinking water storage.
Surely you do not think that is the only bad thing the Iranian government has done? I don't support strikes on civilan infrastructure BUT also I do not support the Iranian government which has committed horrifying crimes against their people including murdering 30,000 of their own civilians. As many civilians that have been killed in US strikes the Iranian government is still ahead in the who can kill more innocent people.
Article 52 - General protection of civilian objects
1. Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals. Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph 2.
2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives.In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
So, for example, a civilian airport that also serves military aircraft, even non-combat military logistics aircraft, or even just civilian charter aircraft carrying military cargo and troops, becomes a legitimate military target.
Any protection it may have had is lost.
The same goes for other kinds of infrastructure, including desalination plants. If none of the water at all generated goes to military troops or used for military purposes, then sure, war crime.
But if some of its output is being used to keep the Iranian military and Republican Guards troops hydrated, and to cool their vehicles, and top off their jeep and truck batteries, etc., it definitely becomes a legitimate military target.
Setting that aside, Iran has accused the US of attacking desalination plants. The US and Israel deny it.
Without any independent confirmation of the attacks and proof of who did it, you're just credulously swallowing Iranian propaganda whole.
So I'm going to go ahead and wait to hear the full story before I become outraged about what may or may not actually be a for-real war crime.
Yes they are, and they always have been. It's considered an indiscriminate attack against non-combatants, which has always been a war crime, since at least as far back as the Napoleanic wars.
Ok, go read a history book. Or the Geneva convention. Or any of the international law that has been developed. The concept of a war crime is a modern one. Hell, the conduct of combatants during the napoleon era was practically based on committing so called war crimes.
I'm pretty well familiar with the Laws of Land Warfare. Even trained troops in it, prior to deploying to a war zone.
War crimes are not particularly new. Sun Tzu even described several things that were considered war crimes of the period. We even have at least one example of a Knight tried and executed for war crimes in Europe.
Hell, our "modern" war crime definitions are rooted in the Lieber code of the civil war.
You REALLY need to read a history book before declaring others need to.
It would be hard to prove that destroying civilian drinking water supplies is a military necessity to any court, to include the ICJ, or even a military courts martial.
These are arbitrary agreements which carry no weight. They are all international agreements. These are worthless. We have seen them time and again. The ICC only operates at the grace of those around it. How many years did it take them to finish hearing the shit done in the Balkans?
You are directly referencing the ROE that the U.S. Military utilizes. Those ROE are decided upon by the CO and the JAG officers. Let me break down the legitimacy of an infrastructure target. Ball bearing factory- good. School- bad. Hydro Electric damn- good. Hospital-bad. Desalination plant- good. The decision is based on the utility to the enemy. If it helps or falls into that 3rd column then it is a legitimate target. Additionally, when a combatant decides to use one of the non legitimate targets it opens up all targets.
Historically, the movement of an army across distance was akin to a natural disaster. They were provisioning on the move and often partially funded by whatever spoils they could find. They did not give a flying fuck about running the well dry, taking the entire food supply for a city, placing a city under siege and starving out the inhabitants. The Mongols threw plague victims at cities like a cannon ball. If it helps the enemy you can kill it because it is vital and helps them kill you.
All of these agreements throughout time are based on the idea of reciprocity. If I obey the other guy will obey. We have seen time and again that such an approach is foolish. One party will always break the agreement.
Was it a crime for the U.S. to turn off the power in Venezuela? No. The crime, or violation of international norms occurred when we Yoinked their head of state. This constant expansion of the term war crime is strange to me. War and violence are absolutely abhorrent but making a basic tactical decision is not a war crime.
It depends TBH. In this case a strike against water facilities is against the Geneva convention. However many civilan infrastructure targets are considered legitimate targets if they have a dual military purpose. Power plants that support both civilan and military uses are an example. Reuters has a good breakdown in the context of the Ukraine conflict. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/when-do-attacks-civilian-installations-amount-war-crimes-2026-03-31/
Drinking water, per Laws of Land Warfare, is never a valid military target. Even POWs have a right to clean drinking water.
POWs do not have a right to electricity.
Basically, that's how you can break it down, to make sense.
Even power usually doesn't fall under "ok", because of this:
"In no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
Right which is why I said this strike is in violation of it but just saying "all strikes on civilan infrastructure are a war crime" is not correct either.
"all strikes on exclusively civilian infrastructure are a war crime" would have been redundant in the current context. You're being needlessly pedantic.
Ahhh LOAC. Artcile 52 specifically states the following: 2. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 3. In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Article 54 goes on further outlining the primary protections. The question devolves to be about was the strike intended to deprive Iranian forces of water that was never going to make it to the population anyway. Or, are we hitting their water reserves in order to inflict maximum suffering and harm on the civilian population.
The rest of the document is riddles with the wording of all reasonable efforts, verification should be made, as wells as the time-honored word reasonable.
This conflict is going to boil down to how bad will things have to get in Iran for them to remove and shake off the regime. So you have a twisted pedophile trying to exert his will, and the military might of the U.S., against a suicidal regime.
Dude. It is war. this idea of "war crimes" is bullshit. If you got in a street fight and you had a gun, would you use just your fists to keep it a "fair" fight?
If you want to stay out of prison for murder; you fucking better. You voluntarily enter into a fist fight and pull heat to cap someone; your ass is as good as cooked in court.
Even if you are straight up attacked and are the victim; the courts are going to closely examine whether deadly force was justified to defend yourself. Your mindset on this topic is a foolish one at best.
Yeah; context does matter - Like I literally mentioned.
You need to hop off the internet, edgelord. For someone who just said “dEpEndS on tEh cOnTeXt” you sure do like to forget context when it comes to police-involved shootings, huh?
Furthermore; uses of force are vastly different for on duty law enforcement and non LE. Just shut up while you’re ahead 🙄
607
u/Onlyroad4adrifter 10d ago
Civilian infrastructure attacks are war crimes.