126
The US has been the main villain ever since they inherited the role from the British. None of this is surprising if you've been paying attention.
The 40k universe is clearly inspired by real-world politics. There are only bad guys, villains, and monsters. Nobody has the moral high ground in this mess.
I hate this comment.
"There is no such thing as innocence; only degrees of guilt."
"Everyone is guilty in MegaCity-1. We're here to decide how much they are".
Oh that’s a nice one. Where did you steal that from?
piefed.social/u/QuantumStorm@lemmy.world has it right, i believe - but i'm ashamed to admit that i only know that because i had to look it up after originally hearing it from ... a fanfic, of all things.
So I have stolen what was already stolen! The writer of said fic was making a direct WH40k reference
(the fanfic in question is "Shinji and Warhammer 40K" and i cannot possibly describe the appeal of it more adequately than TV Tropes did.)
Centrist, politically relativist nerds unite; incidentally, relativism is a useful cope if you are one of the baddies.
We bombed only seven hospitals, whereas those guys bombed eight. They are clearly the worst, while we are the good guys, relatively speaking.
one side (the americans and their zionist allies) are perpetrating obvious genocide and threatening atrocities to the rest of the world, while the people in Iran are defending themselves; Man why is morality so difficult!?
Morality DLC was too expensive... Well, actually cheaper than the Ethnic Cleansing DLC, Dictatorship DLC or Warmongering DLC etc. So many to choose from, so obviously American got all of them, but ran out of money just before clicking buy on the Morality DLC. Oh well…
Anyway, Imperialism DLC just got updated, so maybe it’s about time to finally try that out.
They already tried the imperialism expansion; it ended up in a lot of dead nazis. I am eager to see the imperialist and nazis screaming and burning once again.
Ah yes, if only we’d let moral absolutists like you take the wheel, we’d finally have a world where every conflict is solved by pointing at the other side and yelling "No, you’re the baddie!"
Heaven forbid anyone try to classify things at a level above a kindergarten playground.
If anything, you're the one closer to being a moral absolutist. Iran does some bad things, but they're also at war with genocidal nazi pedophiles who want to destroy their country. You equivocate the two so that you don't have to feel uncomfortable.
Nowhere in that comment was I equivocating the two. It's not like the only two options are "USA bad, Iran good" or "USA bad, Iran bad". That's just a false dichotomy and more of the kind of black and white thinking I was criticizing. I also don't have to find ways to not feel uncomfortable about it simply because I am not an American.
thank you for making a perfect example of what a nazi would say! Can you say that again while goose stepping doing the roman salute and threatening the destruction of a whole civilization? Your type of people will be remembered as the ghouls that were doing defense for the mass murderers that are set to wreck the earth and that stain will never come off.
Yes, Nazis famously made nuanced moral judgements and never sought to demonize or thought certain groups were unequivocally bad at all. LMFAO.
They also killed a lot of innocent civilians and they were experts at handwaving those murders.
I don't claim that know who the good guys are, but the US and specifically the military are definitely the baddies.
These sailors signed up to fight for the Iranian regime. Regardless of what you think of who did it and how: these were baddies.
I disagree with you only on one point; "and specifically the military".
Apologies for being blunt, but this is a coward's logic. I'm not seeing that to attack you personally, but because far, far too many of us are guilty of this specific act of moral cowardice, and it needs to be called out now often.
A military acts on the will of a government. A government rules by the consent of the people (yes, even authoritarian governments; democracy is just a system for assigning that consent peacefully, fairly, and with minimal bloodshed).
With vanishingly few exceptions throughout history, militaries are not rogue agents acting on their own devices. They are our will made manifest. A soldier is a bullet fired from a gun. We take aim and pull the trigger. A soldier can do their best to act ethically and responsibly, but ultimately war is a scenario where no good outcomes can ever occur. Only degrees of terrible.
A soldier chooses to accept the responsibility of living and enacting that terror on our behalf because ultimately someone has to. War is sometimes inevitable and necessary. We do not categorically refer to the soldiers fighting for Ukraine's defence as monsters even though most of them - especially those serving before the war, those whose bravery and skill ground the Russian invasion to a halt in those vital early hours - serve for the same panoply of reasons that any other soldier does. Many of those reasons are simple, or selfish, or thoughtless, but the reasons why they chose to shoulder that responsibility didn't change the outcome.
It's easy to blame the military, because it abrogates the collective shame of what war actually is; an extension of politics. I know plenty of soldiers who are some of the most anti-war people you'll ever meet, because they understand what war costs, in a way the average civilian never will.
When war kills people, when war results in atrocities, when war is a nightmare of death and carnage and suffering, that responsibility is collective. It belongs to a people, not just a military.
Trump's war in Iran is America's war in Iran. Just like Iraq and Afghanistan and Vietnam and Korea, and so many others.
The only one thinking the US are the good guys it's the US.
As of right now, you're no better... scratch that, you are actually worse than Putin.
The US have never been 'the good guys'.
America and Israel are the common enemies of humanity
Add Russia to that
China and North Korea too while at it, please?
Who Are the Good Guys Again?
Nobody this time. Especially those holding absolute power.
US are not the good guys since WWII.
Unfortunately what is allowed in war is still pretty brutal. This was a warship and it would be a legitimate target from the moment the war started, without exception.
Let's focus on the actual war crimes, like the Pentagon redefining "military target" to include destroying energy, food, and fresh water infrastructure because soldiers need to drink water too... Hitting those targets would still be a war crime, the Pentagon is not the arbiter of what is and isn't a military target.
The US has rarely been "the good guys", and even then mostly by accident.
I don't see where it's clarified that the ship was unarmed or if that would make it somehow not a military target? It's not a civilian ship, it's a military vessel.
Call me crazy, but in a race of most-illegal, attacking a legal target in an illegal war seems like a pretty low hanging fruit. A lot of making something out of nothing vibe when there's plenty of somethings to actually talk about.
Again, assuming I didn't miss where it's outlined that this isn't the case, but a WARship being attacked by another WARship (submarine if there's a technical difference but that's not my point) in a WAR just doesn't seem like an ethical dilemma beyond the shitty reasons for the illegal war in the first place.
It was a legitimate target for sure. Trying to make a deal out of this ship is just stupid. You have far better cases to be made with the school's that were hit.
The fact it's now confirmed they informed Sri Lanka of the sinking and sailors in distress removes that aspect of a potential war crime as well.
As to the articles mentioning of mysteriously broken legs. I don't think that's a particularly big mystery... when the floor accelerates that quickly into you feet first. Broken legs are to be expected.
absolutely not a legitimate target. Especially during an illegal war.
I understand you dislike the action that took place. I also think it was cowardly. But it simply does not change the fact that warships are legitimate targets in war.
Regardless of what the USA would like to call it or if it had congressional approval or not.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Trying to make a deal out of this ship is just stupid. You have far better cases to be made with the school's that were hit."
2 things can be bad to varying degrees. Nuance and context are things.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It was a war ship therefore a valid target
I hope you were being sarcastic and not an ignorant monster.
I hope you are being sarcastic and not an ignorant monster.
The war is evil. But a military ship is legally a valid target. The lying characterization that a warship is not a valid target is what we object to. We don't like liars.
An attack on an unarmed vessel during a ceremonial voyage 2000 miles from the illegal war… yeah no. Not a valid target. Just another war crime to add to the pile.
Might as well say that that school full of little girls is a valid military target because they might join the military someday. Just a really, really fucking stupid comment you made.
What does this mean? Are they implying the US pulled up and literally broke people’s legs?
many of whom had mysteriously broken legs.
Could someone explain this to me?
Edit: I’m just asking about the broken legs. I understand the rest. Is it abnormal in torpedo attacks? Why did they call it mysterious?
Nothing about broken legs I can find.
My question was specifically about the broken legs.
If a ship is in distress you don't normally get broken legs, it's the implication that there was a very violent event that either caused people who were just standing around to get broken legs, or they panicked and jumped in to the water from height, having no time to reach lifeboats.
Also it's showing the grim reality of war. The news usually like to say something was bombed and people killed, rather than something was bombed, a couple people vaporised, body parts founds in all directions and people amputated/mutilated, blinded. Or in this case drowned in agony with broken legs
I understand that.
But wouldn’t you have broken arms, shoulders, backs, etc etc.
Why call out legs specifically? Why is it a mystery?
It was a mystery from the perspective of the Sri Lankan rescuers, who didn't realise at the time the exact nature of the Iranian ship's fate. They knew it had been sunk, but not how. Later, the periscope footage would be released, illuminating the exact cause of the harm suffered by the Iranian sailors.
I don't get why the article keeps saying the military frigate was "unarmed"?
It was on a training mission and was heading home. With no weapons on board. We are cowards.
This entire war is illegal, but articles like this just grind my gears.
Attacking a war ship on a training run is like destroying airplanes on the ground, or bombing infantry barracks where soldiers are sleeping. It isn't a war crime, or even out of the ordinary in a war.
And calling the sub crew cowards doesn't even make sense.
The frigate would have been just as helpless against the sub if it had been carrying its usual armament.
I guess I'm just allergic to dishonest propaganda, no matter from which side.
Also, fuck Trump, his administration, and every single US service member going along with this. I hope they get humiliated and are forced to pull out with their tails between their legs before they "accidentally" kill more school children, or deliberately destroy Iran's civilian infrastructure (an actual war crime).
an attack on an unarmed vessel during a ceremonial voyage 2000 miles from the illegal war.... yeah no. Just another war crime to add to the pile.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2026
126 points (100.0% liked)
News
37338 readers
131 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS