The US has publicly demanded that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or else the US will begin destroying Iranian electricity generation.
-
The US has publicly demanded that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or else the US will begin destroying Iranian electricity generation.
Under international laws of war, power plants are lawful targets insofar as they power an adversary’s war effort, and harms to civilians must be proportional to the military advantage offered by those attacks.
In this case, threatening to destroy national power generation to coerce the Iranian state to alter its policy in the Strait is just terrorism. Not in a mere colloquial sense, but in a specifically legal sense.
(So too is the Iranian state’s threat to retaliate in kind.)
@HeavenlyPossum International law, like state or domestic law, only matters if it is enforced.
-
@HeavenlyPossum International law, like state or domestic law, only matters if it is enforced.
@SharpCheddarGoblin
There's (at least) two kinds of "matters" in regards to law:
- coercion of behaviours by way of consequences
- guideline on what to strive for, and what kind of decisions to makeI'm not able right now to put in words why having those rules in place is important even if the consequences are not there, but I do think that way.
@HeavenlyPossum -
@SharpCheddarGoblin
There's (at least) two kinds of "matters" in regards to law:
- coercion of behaviours by way of consequences
- guideline on what to strive for, and what kind of decisions to makeI'm not able right now to put in words why having those rules in place is important even if the consequences are not there, but I do think that way.
@HeavenlyPossum@SharpCheddarGoblin
I'm not claiming you said we shouldn't have them, but your argument could also be understood as "there's no point", thus my commentary
@HeavenlyPossum -
@SharpCheddarGoblin
I'm not claiming you said we shouldn't have them, but your argument could also be understood as "there's no point", thus my commentary
@HeavenlyPossum@viq @HeavenlyPossum I'm not *exactly* arguing there's no point. But the fact that we have these laws (aspirational or otherwise), and there are no consequences for certain actors that violate them constantly, makes a mockery of the whole idea.
Like the tiered legal system in my country, USA. There are no consequences for the Epstein class, and the guidelines are a joke to them.
-
I suppose I should be grateful to Trump for fully removing the mask and revealing the entire liberal international order was ALWAYS predicated on the formalization of state violence and state terror.
@HeavenlyPossum He does domestic terrorism so why not do it abroad? I still think the pager terrorist attack from a few years back is one of the scariest and sickest imaginable especially considering that we make almost none of our electronics domestically.
-
@viq @HeavenlyPossum I'm not *exactly* arguing there's no point. But the fact that we have these laws (aspirational or otherwise), and there are no consequences for certain actors that violate them constantly, makes a mockery of the whole idea.
Like the tiered legal system in my country, USA. There are no consequences for the Epstein class, and the guidelines are a joke to them.
@SharpCheddarGoblin
Yeah.
I think pitchforks have a long and noble tradition in that respect.
@HeavenlyPossum -
The US has publicly demanded that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or else the US will begin destroying Iranian electricity generation.
Under international laws of war, power plants are lawful targets insofar as they power an adversary’s war effort, and harms to civilians must be proportional to the military advantage offered by those attacks.
In this case, threatening to destroy national power generation to coerce the Iranian state to alter its policy in the Strait is just terrorism. Not in a mere colloquial sense, but in a specifically legal sense.
(So too is the Iranian state’s threat to retaliate in kind.)
@HeavenlyPossum
"(So too is the Iranian state’s threat to retaliate in kind.)"Not sure about this. What about reciprocity and MAD to thwart agression?
-
@HeavenlyPossum
"(So too is the Iranian state’s threat to retaliate in kind.)"Not sure about this. What about reciprocity and MAD to thwart agression?
Most law does not have a “but they did it first!” clause to sanction war crimes, and that includes international laws of war.
-
@HeavenlyPossum yes that’s what I’m grateful for as well, but it is extremely uncomfortable, we have to bear it and then do shit about it, at least we have that opportunity
It’s terrible what’s happening here. And yet these governments keep lying to us. Two Iraq wars built on lies. The poor citizens, children, and babies are the ones who suffer the most. We live in a very sick world!!!
-
The US has publicly demanded that Iran reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours or else the US will begin destroying Iranian electricity generation.
Under international laws of war, power plants are lawful targets insofar as they power an adversary’s war effort, and harms to civilians must be proportional to the military advantage offered by those attacks.
In this case, threatening to destroy national power generation to coerce the Iranian state to alter its policy in the Strait is just terrorism. Not in a mere colloquial sense, but in a specifically legal sense.
(So too is the Iranian state’s threat to retaliate in kind.)
@HeavenlyPossum
Exactly like Putinds attacks on Ukraine.You can't support one without the other seeing you on his side.
-
I suppose I should be grateful to Trump for fully removing the mask and revealing the entire liberal international order was ALWAYS predicated on the formalization of state violence and state terror.
@HeavenlyPossum
Just to be real for a sec, "you do not, under any circumstances "gotta hand it to them"" -
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
