France says it has seized an oil tanker in the Mediterranean suspected of being part of Russia’s sanction-busting “shadow fleet”.

French President Emmanuel Macron said the tanker, named the Grinch, was “subject to international sanctions and suspected of flying a false flag”.

The French navy, with the assistance of allies including the UK, boarded the vessel on Thursday morning between Spain and Morocco. French maritime authorities said that a search of the vessel had “confirmed the doubts as to the regularity of the flag”.

Russia’s embassy in Paris said it had not been informed of the seizure.

  • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 hours ago

    It’s still bad when the US illegally invades a country (without congressional approval) and abducts its head of state. The only people who don’t seem to mind that are magas, and they don’t seem to mind fascist russia violating international law either.

    This juxtaposition is a bit of a strawman, because both examples are bad and anyone with a moral conscience understands that.

    • Jack@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Tell me you are an American without telling me you are an American…

      • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        And what exactly do you mean by that?

        Is saying “What trump did is bad, and the only people who support it are maga lunatics” something only an american would do?

        • Jack@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          No, saying that the problem with invading another country is that it is done without congressional approval is.

          • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 hours ago

            Way to butcher what I said for the sake of argument.

            Adding what basically amounts to a footnote that he acted without congressional approval doesn’t imply that the only reason it was bad was because it lacked congressional approval. It only means that he acted without the consent of the governed, and thus was an unconstitutional overstep of presidential authority.

            You must be king of the scarecrows to have so many strawmen at your disposal…

            What he did was bad, AND he lacked congressional approval. Not “what he did was bad because it lacked congressional approval.”

              • wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                6 hours ago

                After rereading it, I can see how you could get the wrong idea. The important thing to remember is that parenthetical clauses are to be read independently, without modifying the meaning of the clauses outside the parentheses.