• mastertigurius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 hours ago

    Ah, the “so what” in that sentence might have been misunderstood. What I meant by that is that attacking civilians or civilian areas is prohibited in international law, but those prohibitions are generally disregarded both by the leaders violating international laws and most of the other leaders around them - that’s the big “so what”. It’s unethical, it’s illegal, it’s evil, but leaders of nations will still do it, because they know that most of the other nations’ leaders will look the other way. That’s what I mean by international law going out the window.

    • mrdown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      So what you mean is that international laws should be respected but unfortunately nobody respect them including violent protestors doing violence outside of the right of self defense?

      • mastertigurius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        That’s exactly what I mean. In good faith, those laws were passed over many decades, but they’re ignored on a daily basis. As I said; We’re on the same side

        • mrdown@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 hours ago

          Glad we agree that unjustifiable violence should be condemned while supporting genuine revolt for the good of the whole population