• SulaymanF@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m not defending the attack on the embassy

    And yet you are.

    International law says embassies are sacrosanct. Even if there was commander and generals in there, you cannot attack first and argue self defense without a credible threat of “imminent” danger. Israel had none and has not even argued for this claim. We went over this when the US illegally assassinated Suleimani.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      No. I’m not. I’m debating the point that Israel attacked “first,” just as you said, in a 40 year long conflict.

      • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        That’s not what you said, you said Israel could claim justification for bombing an embassy because enemies were in it. Then you made a vague comment about how long the conflict is, as if that excuses it. If that is true, then all israeli embassies are fair game because Mosaad is in them and US embassies as well since they openly have CIA officers in them.

        Firing missiles into a country to blow up an embassy of another country is a “first” no matter what justification you or Israel can come up with.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I said “one could claim it was retaliation” referring to the Houthi Red Sea attacks. My point is this has been going back and forth for 40 years.

          • SulaymanF@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            So the guy with a week old account is condescending. I’m pretty sure I’ve read and taught more history than you. Peace.