The U.S. military has launched several waves of strikes on Iran over Tehran's attack on a container ship in the Strait of Hormuz that set it ablaze and left a crew member missing earlier in the weekend.
My behaviour is judged by the laws of the country I live in.
The behaviour of countries is judged by international law.
When the USA and Israel launched this war of choice, they stepped outside international law.
In the absence of credibly enforced international law, the only thing we have to go by is historical precedent.
Historical precedent says that junior allies being attacked in retaliation for the acts of their senior allies is extremely commonplace. So Iran is not being “terroristic” in any kind of historically exceptional way. We don’t talk about Napoleon being a “terrorist” for invading Portugal in 1807 to get at the UK. The Iranians are fighting a war the same way wars have been fought since Hannibal laid siege to Saguntum. Retaliatory attacks against offshored military facilities and materially participating coalition partners are just a recurring feature of warfare. To be clear: I’m not justifying Iran here, I’m de-exceptionalizing their conduct of warfare.
If somehow enforcement of international law were to be re-instated, and I absolutely would want that to be the case, then Iran’s war crimes (such as any targeting of civilians) should be judged by a competent tribunal. Of course, it should be judged with exactly the same severity as the ones of the USA and Israel (who actually started this war in the first place) by the same tribunal.
If you actually care about civilian casualties, and you’re not just being a campist for the US/Israel, you should be condemning the entire illegal war to begin with. Without US/Israeli adventurism, none of this would have happened. Are you anti-war? Or just anti-Iran?
My behaviour is judged by the laws of the country I live in.
The behaviour of countries is judged by international law.
When the USA and Israel launched this war of choice, they stepped outside international law.
In the absence of credibly enforced international law, the only thing we have to go by is historical precedent.
Historical precedent says that junior allies being attacked in retaliation for the acts of their senior allies is extremely commonplace. So Iran is not being “terroristic” in any kind of historically exceptional way. We don’t talk about Napoleon being a “terrorist” for invading Portugal in 1807 to get at the UK. The Iranians are fighting a war the same way wars have been fought since Hannibal laid siege to Saguntum. Retaliatory attacks against offshored military facilities and materially participating coalition partners are just a recurring feature of warfare. To be clear: I’m not justifying Iran here, I’m de-exceptionalizing their conduct of warfare.
If somehow enforcement of international law were to be re-instated, and I absolutely would want that to be the case, then Iran’s war crimes (such as any targeting of civilians) should be judged by a competent tribunal. Of course, it should be judged with exactly the same severity as the ones of the USA and Israel (who actually started this war in the first place) by the same tribunal.
If you actually care about civilian casualties, and you’re not just being a campist for the US/Israel, you should be condemning the entire illegal war to begin with. Without US/Israeli adventurism, none of this would have happened. Are you anti-war? Or just anti-Iran?
Space cowboy is a neo liberal Zionist through and through. They will use all manner of cognitive dissonance and logical fallacies available.
Also worth knowing that Iran hit US military targets in the neighboring countries and didn’t just “lash out” at them.