The US has zero right to hijack any Iranian ship you are simply adding arbitrary conditions to make it seem like there is a difference between the two.
The only valid point they made is the “government orders” thing. If you copied the somali headline it would be “US pirates hijack…” which isnt clear on if it was civilians or the government that did the hijacking. But yes “boards” is much too passive. “US military hijacks” would be a accurate.
These countries are at war, even if the US doesn’t want to admit that. In a theatre of war combatants “board” ships and “comandeer” them.
Nothing stopping you calling it hijacking if thats your thing but its very obviously a heavy handed attempt at emotive language. It identifies you as a pariah rather than changing the perception of the US navy’s behavior.
The US has zero right to hijack any Iranian ship you are simply adding arbitrary conditions to make it seem like there is a difference between the two.
The only valid point they made is the “government orders” thing. If you copied the somali headline it would be “US pirates hijack…” which isnt clear on if it was civilians or the government that did the hijacking. But yes “boards” is much too passive. “US military hijacks” would be a accurate.
This is very obviously an argument of semantics.
These countries are at war, even if the US doesn’t want to admit that. In a theatre of war combatants “board” ships and “comandeer” them.
Nothing stopping you calling it hijacking if thats your thing but its very obviously a heavy handed attempt at emotive language. It identifies you as a pariah rather than changing the perception of the US navy’s behavior.
Yes that’s literally the point of this com
So emotive language is okay when Somalis do it? Or not okay when so called “state” actors do it on the other side of the planet?
The act is the same and that’s what actually matters. A boat is taken against the will of its crew without any self-defense motive.