UN lawyers- Assassinations are illegal; Israel and Trump both guilty.

moon

Satire for Sanity
The mafia must be laughing its spats off at the thought of dumbass Americans electing an assassin as president ;

As for Biden breaking with international protection for diplomats- it's open season. Expect resignations.


assassins.jpg



https://www.aljazeera.com/news/live...e-israel-vows-response-to-iran?update=2840147
 
[First published by Middle East Eye]

Suddenly, western politicians from US President Joe Biden to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have become ardent champions of "restraint" – in a very last-minute scramble to avoid regional conflagration.

Iran launched a salvo of drones and missiles at Israel at the weekend in what amounted a largely symbolic show of strength. Many appear to have been shot down, either by Israel’s layers of US-funded interception systems or by US, British and Jordanian fighter jets. No one was killed.

It was the first direct attack by a state on Israel since Iraq fired Scud missiles during the Gulf war of 1991.

The United Nations Security Council was hurriedly pressed into session on Sunday, with Washington and its allies calling for a de-escalation of tensions that could all too easily lead to the outbreak of war across the Middle East and beyond.

"Neither the region nor the world can afford more war," the UN’s secretary general, Antonio Guterres, told the meeting. "Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate."

Israel, meanwhile, vowed to "exact the price" against Iran at a time of its choosing.

But the West’s abrupt conversion to “restraint” needs some explaining.

After all, western leaders showed no restraint when Israel bombed Iran’s consulate in Damascus two weeks ago, killing a senior general and more than a dozen other Iranians – the proximate cause of Tehran’s retaliation on Saturday night.

Under the Vienna Convention, the consulate is not only a protected diplomatic mission but is viewed as sovereign Iranian territory. Israel’s attack on it was an unbridled act of aggression – the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg tribunal ruled at the end of the Second World War.

For that reason, Tehran invoked article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows it to act in self-defence.


Shielding Israel

And yet, rather than condemning Israel’s dangerous belligerence – a flagrant attack on the so-called "rules-based order" so revered by the US – western leaders lined up behind Washington’s favourite client state.

At a Security Council meeting on 4 April, the US, Britain and France intentionally spurned restraint by blocking a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate – a vote that, had it not been stymied, might have sufficed to placate Tehran.

At the weekend, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron still gave the thumbs-up to Israel’s flattening of Iran’s diplomatic premises, saying he could "completely understand the frustration Israel feels" – though he added, without any hint of awareness of his own hypocrisy, that the UK "would take very strong action" if a country bombed a British consulate.

By shielding Israel from any diplomatic consequences for its act of war against Iran, the western powers ensured Tehran would have to pursue a military response instead.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opini...genocide?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
 
[First published by Middle East Eye]

Suddenly, western politicians from US President Joe Biden to British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have become ardent champions of "restraint" – in a very last-minute scramble to avoid regional conflagration.

Iran launched a salvo of drones and missiles at Israel at the weekend in what amounted a largely symbolic show of strength. Many appear to have been shot down, either by Israel’s layers of US-funded interception systems or by US, British and Jordanian fighter jets. No one was killed.

It was the first direct attack by a state on Israel since Iraq fired Scud missiles during the Gulf war of 1991.

The United Nations Security Council was hurriedly pressed into session on Sunday, with Washington and its allies calling for a de-escalation of tensions that could all too easily lead to the outbreak of war across the Middle East and beyond.

"Neither the region nor the world can afford more war," the UN’s secretary general, Antonio Guterres, told the meeting. "Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate."

Israel, meanwhile, vowed to "exact the price" against Iran at a time of its choosing.

But the West’s abrupt conversion to “restraint” needs some explaining.

After all, western leaders showed no restraint when Israel bombed Iran’s consulate in Damascus two weeks ago, killing a senior general and more than a dozen other Iranians – the proximate cause of Tehran’s retaliation on Saturday night.

Under the Vienna Convention, the consulate is not only a protected diplomatic mission but is viewed as sovereign Iranian territory. Israel’s attack on it was an unbridled act of aggression – the “supreme international crime”, as the Nuremberg tribunal ruled at the end of the Second World War.

For that reason, Tehran invoked article 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows it to act in self-defence.


Shielding Israel

And yet, rather than condemning Israel’s dangerous belligerence – a flagrant attack on the so-called "rules-based order" so revered by the US – western leaders lined up behind Washington’s favourite client state.

At a Security Council meeting on 4 April, the US, Britain and France intentionally spurned restraint by blocking a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s attack on the Iranian consulate – a vote that, had it not been stymied, might have sufficed to placate Tehran.

At the weekend, British Foreign Secretary David Cameron still gave the thumbs-up to Israel’s flattening of Iran’s diplomatic premises, saying he could "completely understand the frustration Israel feels" – though he added, without any hint of awareness of his own hypocrisy, that the UK "would take very strong action" if a country bombed a British consulate.

By shielding Israel from any diplomatic consequences for its act of war against Iran, the western powers ensured Tehran would have to pursue a military response instead.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opini...genocide?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The middle east eye? LOL
 
Not speaking to UN report...

When you have a leader of a terrorist movement, who is waging war against numerous countries and that leader will never take to a battle field, then killing him where he is (assassination) is fully warranted.

If it is not warranted the terrorist leaders have a checkmate against those they direct attacks. Just never take a battle field.
 
Obama assassinated two American citizens
I always knew you were a Jihadist supporter of terrorists murdering Americans.

Do your fellow Milam melon-pickers know you are a terrorist supporter, ExLax? If they found out, would they burn your shack down?

https://www.brookings.edu/events/anwar-al-awlaki-yemen-and-american-counterterrorism-policy/
On September 30, 2011, the U.S.-born radical Islamic cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed by an American drone strike in Yemen, marking the first extra-judicial killing by the United States government against a U.S. citizen. Placed at the top of a CIA kill list in 2010 by the Obama administration, al-Awlaki was known for his intimate involvement in multiple al-Qaida terrorist plots against U.S. citizens, including the 2009 Christmas Day airline bombing attempt in Detroit and the 2010 plot to blow up U.S.-bound cargo planes. His calls for violent jihad remain prominent on the Internet, and his influence has turned up in many cases since his death, including the Boston Marathon bombing of 2013 and the Charlie Hebdo shootings in Paris early this year
 
“All countries are prohibited from arbitrarily depriving individuals of their right to life in military operations abroad, including when countering terrorism,” said the experts. “Killings in foreign territory are arbitrary when they are not authorised under international law,” they said.

We really need to take a minute to unpack this one. Iranian and Hezbollah are launching poorly guided missiles at civilian population centers in Israel. That sounds like "arbitrarily depriving individuals of their right to life in a military operation abroad" to me. Israel counter strikes by hitting the headquarters for those missile launches. That does not sound "arbitrary" to me. There is a definite military reason for that.

To me, it seems completely legal. I do think that whether it was smart is debatable. Israel struck on Iranian soil giving Iran a cause for escalating war. I do not have all the intelligence, so cannot tell for sure whether it was worth it.
 
The UN says stuff, nobody cares. The UN is nothing but a totally worthless gentleman's drinking and debating society. It is worthless, its opinions are worthless, and its members are worthless.
 
Back
Top