- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
New Nato leader, Mark Rutte, have no shame at all:
Ukraine:
Mark Rutte, the new NATO chief backs using Western weapons to strike deep into Russia:
“We know international law, and according to international law, this right does not end at the border. So that means that supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defense means that it is also possible for them to strike legitimate targets on the aggressor territory,” Rutte said.
https://swentr.site/russia/605049-nato-rutte-ukraine-weapons/Gaza:
Mark Rutte: ‘What can we say to make it look like Israel is not committing war crimes?’:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/live-blog/live-blog-update/what-can-we-say-make-it-look-israel-not-committing-war-crimes-dutchJack; interesting:
– “We know international law, and according to international law, this right does not end at the border. So that means that supporting Ukraine’s right to self-defense means that it is also possible for them to strike legitimate targets on the aggressor territory,”
Somehow doesn’t seem to apply to Palestinians or Palestinian refugees striking targets in Israel though, does it?
Clark
Exactly, and there is of course no single journalist in the west that could pose that obvious, simple question to him, there is no single op-editorial in the western msm, that have ever raised this double-standard of the law.
This Rutten quote is very important.
It is the last line of defense of this pack of genocidal liars.Problem is that Art. 51 is limited as self-defense goes.
“(…)
the UN Charter only gives states a delimited right of self- defense under
Charter Article 51),
(…)”
(Falk/Sponeck. “Liberating the United Nations”, Stanford Press, 2024)Now I would have to look into the legal scholarsrhip WHAT is regarded as proper military support.
Because 100% “proxy war” is not among the intentions.So what are the caveats possibly?
That third parties operate the long-range weapons?
In fact provided them?
In fact pressured the attacked nation into rejecting a peace?And if attacking the aggressor were part of Art. 51 as Rutten claims, is attacking WMD-sites part of that?
Or public spaces?
Civil structures?Nope.
Attacks are certainly only legitimate on military targets that do not outweigh the costs caused (bombong biolabs or triggering WWIII.)
But that very category is the one AFU/NATO NEVER attack.
Eventually NATO by Paris Treaty is obliged to choose a peaceful path.
Which NATO did not.So what remains of Rutten´s kindergarten argumentation?
A bunch of adults playing hide and seek with suits on.
