They’re somehow worse than other settler countries like Argentina and Australia.

I wouldn't go that far. Australia discovered a "loophole" with the indigenous population; just declare that they aren't human, they're just more of the local fauna, and therefore you don't actually need to worry about making treaties with them that you break later, you can just massacre them like an animal.

Also fun fact, Aboriginal people weren't given human rights in this country until a 1967 referendum. And also depressing fact, there has been a massive propaganda push in the last few years to try and claim that it is a "myth" that Aboriginal people were treated poorly before that referendum, and because google is google and wikipedia is wikipedia, you can't even find information on it anymore, only information telling you it is a "myth" now.

I'll be sure to tell my Aboriginal friends that their generation trauma is just a myth, what a relief!

Honestly, this reminds me of something from Mark Twain's satirical A Defense of General Funston. Funston was fighting to conquer the Philippines and trying to track down insurgents. He hatched a scheme to be fake-captured by Phillippinos loyal to him, but while they were en route, they ran short of supplies, and begged the insurgents for food. The insurgents sent them food, then welcomed them in to their hideout and fed them, after which Funston's "captors" opened fired and murdered their hosts.

By the custom of war, all these things are innocent, none of them is blameworthy, all of them are justifiable; none of them is new, all of them have been done before, although not by a Brigadier-General. But there is one detail which is new, absolutely new. It has never been resorted to before in any age of the world, in any country, among any people, savage or civilized. It was the one meant by Aguinaldo when he said that "by no other means" would he have been taken alive. When a man is exhausted by hunger to the point where he is "too weak to move," he has a right to make supplication to his enemy to save his failing life; but if he take so much as one taste of that food--which is holy, by the precept of all ages and all nations--he is barred from lifting his hand against that enemy for that time.

It was left to a Brigadier-General of Volunteers in the American army to put shame upon a custom which even the degraded Spanish friars had respected. We promoted him for it.

Here's the full list:

Arrested for resisting arrest

Fucking right? People (X users and Redditors so I use the term lightly) are acting like it was a premeditated act by the Iranian Navy, and that they decided to send the ship on some sort of suicidal mission on return after provoking the US and Israel to attack. I...can't fathom how to even address this, it's exhausting to even consider

"We knew they were going to counterattack us." So you're agree that there was no threat unless you landed the first punch, right?

Having grown up during the Iraq war, which featured some pretty dumb propaganda, I am going nuts seeing how much lower the floor has gotten.

I'm doing a bit but it's because if you want your own captured soldiers to not be killed or mistreated, you have to not kill or mistreat the captives you take. They're also useful leverage in negotiation: "we'll return 500 PoWs if you'll honor such and such ceasefire" sort of thing.

Also, if you take prisoners your enemy may be more willing to surrender if their position is lost. If they know they're all going to die no matter what, they're going to make sure to hurt you as badly as they can before they go.

Taking no prisoners makes you worse at warfare.