That’s not how international law works.

The fact that UK embassy in Moscow is full of MI6 spies doesn’t allow Russia to bomb it.

Yes that’s what I meant. He didn’t explicitly “allow” it, but he failed to condemn Israeli hit and then got immediately caught by interviewer in a logical fallacy. Good work on that interviewer.

Having said that - bombing embassies is a bad idea. Don’t do that kids.

Apples and oranges.

The "consulate" in Damascus was a no less than a base for IRGC actively supporting Hezbollah.

They got what was coming.

Ye I would shake her hand if i ever met her. good strong interview.
and well said by you, in both posts.

I repeat, that’s not how international law works.

Even even if it was full of military that was conducting proxy warfare - you cannot attack an embassy according to international law. It is a peremptory norm accepted by all civilized countries around the world.

Attacking an embassy directly means declaring a war. It was a really stupid decision.

Dear ChatGPT

The bombing of diplomatic missions in any country is a severe breach of international law and diplomatic norms. Diplomatic missions, such as embassies and consulates, are considered sovereign territory of the respective countries they represent. Attacking them not only endangers the lives of diplomats and civilians but also undermines the fundamental principles of diplomacy and peaceful resolution of conflicts. Failing to condemn such actions would signal a dangerous acceptance or even endorsement of violence against diplomatic institutions, which are essential for maintaining communication and resolving disputes between nations. It could lead to a breakdown of trust between countries and escalate tensions, potentially resulting in further violence or even conflict. In summary, the bombing of diplomatic missions should always be unequivocally condemned to uphold the principles of international law, diplomacy, and peace.

-----

I can only respond via ChatGPT as you struggle to understand my arguments/positions when I use my own words. The following books may be of some help to you. some of these are also available in audio format:

"The Tragedy of Great Power Politics" by John Mearsheimer - Offers insights into the realist perspective on international relations and the dynamics of power among nations.

"Diplomacy" by Henry Kissinger - Provides an inside look into the art of diplomacy by one of the most renowned diplomats of the 20th century.

"The International Law of Human Rights" by Paul Sieghart - Explores the development and application of international human rights law, crucial for understanding the legal frameworks protecting individuals worldwide.

"The Law of Nations: An Introduction to the International Law of Peace" by James L. Brierly - Offers a comprehensive overview of the principles and practices of international law governing peaceful relations between states.

"Understanding International Conflicts: An Introduction to Theory and History" by Joseph S. Nye Jr. and David A. Welch - Examines various theoretical perspectives on conflict and provides historical examples to illustrate key concepts.

"The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict" edited by Andrew Clapham and Paola Gaeta - Provides in-depth analysis of international humanitarian law and its application in armed conflicts.

----

these are, again recommended by ChatGPT. i removed those books not directly relevant (I hope you forgive me for not referencing those books, but having read them I didnt feel they were relevant to the point in question).

This post was edited by ferdia on Apr 18 2024 08:59am

Absolutely it does.

As does poisoning former citizens with novichok in foreign counrries or invading your neighbouring country and causing untold destruction and deaths of half a million people.

Which act is ostensibly more destabilising to the rules based order?

Hypocrites will say Israel is breaking international law but justify Russias invasion of Ukraine in the same breath.

Ferdia is a hypocrite for that.

Weird post honestly.

In this post you basically confirm that you believe that the West can make the rules and give the orders lmao

International law doesn't apply to Israel and it's Zionist supporters

lets try another way:

Imagine you have a clubhouse where you and your friends play together. Each friend has their own little space in the clubhouse that they call their own. Now, imagine if someone came and broke one of your friend's spaces, making it unsafe for them to play. You would feel upset, right? Well, countries have something like clubhouses too. They're called embassies or consulates. These are places where people from one country go to talk to people from another country. It's a bit like a clubhouse for grown-ups where they discuss important things to keep peace and solve problems. Now, if someone were to break into one of these embassies and hurt the people or damage the place, it's like breaking the rules of the clubhouse. It's not fair or right. If nobody says anything about it, it's like nobody is telling that person it's wrong to break the rules.

So, if bombing of diplomatic missions in countries isn't condemned, it means nobody is saying it's wrong. But it's important for everyone to say it's wrong because hurting people and breaking things isn't how we solve problems. We need to talk and work together peacefully, just like friends do in a clubhouse, to make things better for everyone.