4 ms·
That's an impressively effective strike, took out 14 Iranian/Hezbollah commanders and only 2 unfortunate civilian casualties.
by klipt 3y ago
That's an impressively effective strike, took out 14 Iranian/Hezbollah commanders and only 2 unfortunate civilian casualties.
- bluefishinit 3y agoIt was an illegal strike: > An Israeli airstrike carried out within Syria without its consent would be in contravention of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits a state from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other state... Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law.
- klipt 3y ago[flagged]
- protomolecule 3y ago[flagged]
- klipt 3y agoOne is a democracy, the other is an Islamic theocracy. Do you really think the world needs more Islamic theocracy and less democracy?
- dotnet00 3y agoIs it okay to break laws if you're supposed to be the good guys?
- klipt 3y ago[flagged]
- mupuff1234 3y agoNot necessarily this time, but definitely sometimes yes. When dealing with bad faith actors sometimes laws should be broken imo.
- HDThoreaun 3y agosometimes
- bluish29 3y agoNo, unless you feel that you are better than other humans or above law. Then you are a bad guy and racist.
- HDThoreaun 3y agoMy moral framework rejects absolute laws. Breaking laws sometimes doesnt make me bad at all. I can accept that it does in yours, but I dont really care.
- protomolecule 3y ago"doesnt make me bad at all" Did Hitler feel bad?
- mupuff1234 3y agoSomeone's not a fan of Batman.
- Ajay-p 3y agoIn general, or through terrorist organizations? I would say your statement should be expanded: Iran has a history of targeting civilians.
- mhb 3y ago[flagged]
- jazzyjackson 3y agointernational law is an oxymoron
- mytailorisrich 3y ago> Unless Israel were able to justify any airstrike as an act of self-defense, it would be in violation of international law. So... not illegal since hezbollah has been targeting and attacking Israel with Iran's help. Israel is defending itself. In any case there is no law between sovereign states. Now, Iran's use of drones to retaliate seems calibrated to avoid a further escalation because it is unlikely that they will cause much damage. But let's see how things unfold as apparently Iran has launched a large number of drones...
- ta1243 3y agoSo it would have been legal for the UK to bomb Dublin in the 90s because the IRA was bombing civilians in the UK?
- mytailorisrich 3y agoThe Hezbollah is currently attacking Israel with Iran's backing and operational support. That building in Damascus was obviously used by Iran and Hezbollah as operational or command centre, or similar, since personel from both the Iranian military and Hezbollah were killed in the attack. Hence it was perfectly "legal", for Israel to destroy it in self-defense. Do you think it was "legal" for Iran to fire hundreds of drones at Israel's civilian areas (which is what Hamas does as well, btw)? I think that this would be a more obvious breach of "international law" if you wanted to be such a stickler for it...
- ta1243 3y agoFrom Iran's point of view they were attacked. If American proxies in Guatemala attacked say Cuba, would it be legal for Cuba to retaliate by bombing an American embassy in Mexico? If Cuba did do that, would America be justified in responding by bombing Cuba?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 3y ago
- IAmGraydon 3y agoPlease explain how this was used against the territorial integrity or political independence of a state.
- HDThoreaun 3y ago[flagged]
- wslh 3y ago[flagged]
- seo-speedwagon 3y agoWhat’s impressive about bombing an embassy? Like, pick a random embassy in a random country and bomb it, you’ll kill a bunch of people.
- davidf18 3y ago[dead]
- myth_drannon 3y agoIt was a building NEAR the embassy used by Iranian army and Hizbollah. It was not something official.
- seo-speedwagon 3y agoI remember hearing almost exactly the same weak excuses when Israel bombed the Church of Saint Porphyrius. “Well actually it was the building right next to it (that is exclusively used by it)”. It’s not fooling anyone.
- mupuff1234 3y agoIn this case we have pretty strong proof since we know exactly who was killed in the strike, don't we?
- tzs 3y ago> What’s impressive about bombing an embassy? They covered that in words 6 through 17 of their comment.
- klipt 3y agoKilling completely random people is easy (and a war crime), killing a bunch of military commanders is much harder (and a valid military operation). This was the second one.