top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 123 points 2 years ago (3 children)

At this point it's literally a war crime. Claim denial and accidents all they wanted before, but if the sailors are outright acknowledging it was intentional to attack civilian infrastructure, it's by definition a war crime

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949?activeTab=1949GCs-APs-and-commentaries

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    War crimes don't matter anymore. Russia does them, Israel does them, the US does them. There is no justice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Does Germany do them any more? How about Ireland?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Germany has supported Israel with weapons whilst knowing they were committing a Genocide, so the answer for Germany is probably "Yes", at least as an accomplice.

    The answer for the Republic Of Ireland is as far as I know "No".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Hang the captain and first mate, take the oil, sink the ship. This is how we've always dealt with pirates.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Scrap the ship, don't sink it. We have more than enough waste on the bottom of the various oceans and seas as is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You can responsibly strip and scuttle large vessels to help facilitate reef development

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Fair enough, but that's still a form of scrapping as opposed to outright immediate sinking of the vessel. Far too often vessles are sunk, mostly intact, and that is causing countless amounts of pollution in our waterways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 49 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    The head of the investigation, Risto Lohi of the National Bureau of Investigation, told Reuters the vessel was threatening to cut a second power cable, Estlink1, and the BalticConnector gas pipe between Finland and Estonia at the time it was seized.

    "Lohi" is Finnish for "salmon". That's right. Inspector Salmon is in charge of this investigation. Thankyou, Finland.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    I wonder if NATO is going to try and enforce a blockade where any ship travelling through the area of cables must be escorted.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Lock them up.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    Steal some of the oil. Replace it at correct stoichiometric ratio with ammonium nitrate or some other powerful oxidiser. Attach a detonator and tracking device to the ship. Don't tell the crew. Let the crew go free. When the ship reaches its destination, detonate. Halifax explosion, round two.

    Fuck you, whoever would buy Russian oil.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    I should maybe add that I don't think this is actually a good idea. I can just see that it's scientifically possible, and I enjoy constructing scenarios like this.

    But to those who are riding Putin's dick, just know that these are the things the West could do, but chooses not to. And the fuck you to all buyers of Russian oil still stands. I don't care how poor they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You realize that a lot of Russian oil gets "laundered" and then imported to the EU? So you would likely blow up an EU port, which is like a double Christmas and birthday gift to Putin.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    It would probably blow up the port doing the laundering, which is unlikely to be happening in the EU.

    But it would even more likely blow up an Indian or Chinese port.

    It doesn't matter. Like I said, I think this is a really bad idea. Mainly because it is collective punishment, and almost all of the thousands of victims would have had nothing to do with their corporations' and their governments' decision to buy that oil.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They are russian flagged vessels right? What does that mean in terms of ability to do things about them?

    I assume you can't legally just board/sink them, even with cause?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Edit: I thought that the gulf of Finland was narrower than it is, and this affects the relevance of my comment. See boredtortoise's reply below

    Under UNCLOS at least, a country can board a ship within its territorial waters to investigate a crime "if the consequences of the crime extend to the coastal State" (and some other reasons). Sinking it is almost certainly illegal, but it's an unarmed ship and Finland has marines so I can't imagine that they'd have much trouble boarding it if they wanted to

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Pay them to sabotage the infrastructure of Russia and its allies. Plainly all this crew wants is money.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›