[News] The World at War
- Thread starter Zeberdi
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
aolstudios
Well-known member
Are you saying they can't be bombed until they're actually completed?Posted the same point up thread yesterday, along with this article - there is no mandate of self-defence for bombing nuclear facilities where bombs might be built and might be used at some undefined point in the future.
Is Israel’s Use of Force Against Iran Justified by Self-Defence?
This morning, Israel launched a major military operation against Iran targeting its nuclear programme, including facilities, individual scientists and military leadership. In this post, I will provide a quick, preliminary analysis of the legality of Israel’s use of force against Iran as a...www.ejiltalk.org
Various ingredients have been found at numerous locations
- Oct 20, 2022
- 8,972
- Thread starter
- #163
Not legally under Article 51. of the Charter - which is the mandate of self-defence (which is what Israel is claiming).
No one knows how far away Iran is from developing weaponised concentration of uranium, or whether they could produce it in enough quantities to be a threat, nor if they or when they might threaten Israel with them. To initiate a pro-active attack on another sovereign state in ‘self-defence’, that threat needs to be real and probably imminent.
It’s not legal to bomb a Country on a hunch they are about to have nuclear weapons. A hunch btw that Netanyahu has been saying for the past 30 years.
Don’t forget, Iran has a nuclear energy program which is entirely legitimate - those ‘ingredients‘ found which include enriched uranium are crucial to power Iran’s energy reactors. That enrichment is around 3-5%. Nuclear weapons need about 90%.
Anyway, I think we know that it’s regime change and the possibility of trading/buying up rich sources of minerals and in Netanyahu’s case, political necessity, which is motivating these hostilities from Israel rather than any real threat of Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel.
And it’s a war we should stay out of
Israel's war on Iran: Why the UK must stay out
Starmer would be wise to avoid a reckless gamble on a conflict pursued by an increasingly desperate Netanyahu
www.middleeasteye.net
Last edited:
NorthstandRacoon
Well-known member
Israel are ****s that’s why. Quite enjoyed seeing Iran give them a taste if their own medicine re Gaza and bombing them.
NorthstandRacoon
Well-known member
They must really admire their murderers of the 1940s.Meanwhile, the subject that is taboo
Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians waiting for flour at Gaza aid site, witnesses and rescuers say
Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians waiting for flour at Gaza aid site, witnesses and rescuers say
It is potentially the deadliest of the almost daily shootings that have been taking place recently near aid distribution sites.www.bbc.co.uk
Fkn tw@ts
Soton Seagull
Well-known member
Amazing dead cat strategy from Israel when the heat was being turned up on them for their extended starvation of the Palestinians.
Because you have to state the bleedin obvious, I think hamas (autocorrect keeps trying to amusingly replace with Hampshire!) are scum. Had to be said as ridiculously Israel's government has expertly created the narrative that to citicise them means you are an antisemite.
Iran needs change, but we've seen western attempts at regime change go less than ideally in both Iraq and Afghanistan this century, so fear the outcome if America goes balls deep on this one.
Because you have to state the bleedin obvious, I think hamas (autocorrect keeps trying to amusingly replace with Hampshire!) are scum. Had to be said as ridiculously Israel's government has expertly created the narrative that to citicise them means you are an antisemite.
Iran needs change, but we've seen western attempts at regime change go less than ideally in both Iraq and Afghanistan this century, so fear the outcome if America goes balls deep on this one.
aolstudios
Well-known member
Not legally under Article 51. of the Charter - which is the mandate of self-defence (which is what Israel is claiming).
No one knows how far away Iran is from developing weaponised concentration of uranium, or whether they could produce it in enough quantities to be a threat, nor if they or when they might threaten Israel with them. To initiate a pro-active attack on another sovereign state in ‘self-defence’, that threat needs to be real and probably imminent.
It’s not legal to bomb a Country on a hunch they are about to have nuclear weapons. A hunch btw that Netanyahu has been saying for the past 30 years.
Don’t forget, Iran has a nuclear energy program which is entirely legitimate - those ‘ingredients‘ found which include enriched uranium are crucial to power Iran’s energy reactors. That enrichment is around 3-5%. Nuclear weapons need about 90%.
Anyway, I think we know that it’s regime change and the possibility of trading/buying up rich sources of minerals and in Netanyahu’s case, political necessity, which is motivating these hostilities from Israel rather than any real threat of Iran launching a nuclear attack on Israel.
And it’s a war we should stay out of
Israel's war on Iran: Why the UK must stay out
Starmer would be wise to avoid a reckless gamble on a conflict pursued by an increasingly desperate Netanyahu
The Fits
Well-known member
- Jun 29, 2020
- 11,029
What’s this chaps excuse for Israel bombing Gaza (still) I wonder?