Qassem Soleimani strike violated international human rights law, UN official argues

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the action:

Attachment 8798

I give you 2 guesses as to the nationality of the UN official that is making the case for human rights violation.

The answer can be found in the last sentence of the linked article.

Boom goes the weasel.

Going to be a simple choice. Respond with overwhelming force again or let Iran have the region. The only possible third option is to get enough economic pressure to collapse their regime, but with the EU not going that way it will be very tough.

The way to end "forever wars" is to crush your enemy utterly. Our endless half measures since the end of Korea have left us in this state.

The problem is that's a very high price and it's unpalatable. So maybe we just walk away and if Iran takes over everything from Israel to India that's OK.

“The test for so-called anticipatory self-defense is very narrow: it must be a necessity that is ‘instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.’ This test is unlikely to be met in these particular cases,” she added.


Callamard noted that “an individual’s past involvement in ‘terrorist’ attacks is not sufficient to make his targeting for killing lawful.”

Must be a nice view there in Fantasyland, b/c that's not how geopolitics works at all. I'm always fascinated by this notion of "legal" when it comes to dealing with terrorism and drone strikes, etc.

War isn't "legal", and neither are these endless skirmishes. The whole point of using force is that "legal" has broken down and it has now come down to might making right.

What he and Iran have done isn't "legal", and our response isn't either, and that's how things work. Do we sue him in The Hague for his crimes instead? that will sure work well.

Quote:

---

"What he and Iran have done isn't "legal", and our response isn't either, and that's how things work. Do we sue him in The Hague for his crimes instead? that will sure work well."

---

Yup, in short, everything's screwed up, either way.

Attachment 8837

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

“The test for so-called anticipatory self-defense is very narrow: it must be a necessity that is ‘instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.’ This test is unlikely to be met in these particular cases,” she added.


Callamard noted that “an individual’s past involvement in ‘terrorist’ attacks is not sufficient to make his targeting for killing lawful.”

Must be a nice view there in Fantasyland, b/c that's not how geopolitics works at all. I'm always fascinated by this notion of "legal" when it comes to dealing with terrorism and drone strikes, etc.

War isn't "legal", and neither are these endless skirmishes. The whole point of using force is that "legal" has broken down and it has now come down to might making right.

What he and Iran have done isn't "legal", and our response isn't either, and that's how things work. Do we sue him in The Hague for his crimes instead? that will sure work well.

---

All is fair in love and war