|
|
|
|
|
|
by nickvec
11 hours ago
|
|
|
Deliberately attacking a purely civilian object violates the principle of distinction, which is bedrock customary law the US has never disputed. > “better than carpet bombing” The lawful alternative is attacking military targets, not worse civilian targets. > “why is it legal for Iran to bomb oil tankers?” Iran’s conduct being illegal doesn’t legalize this strike. Whataboutism is a scourge. |
|
|
The thing to realize is that US could have destroyed 10-100x more civilian infrastructure. Instead it only gave Iran a small taste of what it's capable of. In undertaking this action, just as with the nukes in WWII, the gambit is to end the war quickly, not to prolong it. I am not saying whether the gambit will work, but why is prolonging war not illegal?
Spatial whataboutism is perfectly fair in war. A tit-for-tat strategy forms a highly stabilizing bedrock.