▲ 55 ▼ Joe Biden ‘discussing’ possible Israeli strikes on Iran oil facilities; IDF says it has killed a Hezbollah commander – Middle East crisis live | Lebanon | The Guardian (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by tal@lemmy.today to c/world@lemmy.world 10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] procrastitron@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (1 child) Joe Biden ‘discussing’ possible Israeli strikes on Iran oil facilities Casually discussing committing war crimes... civilian energy infrastructure is not a valid military target. permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Oil facilities can be legitimate targets, if they're producing fuels, other petroleum products, or generating electricity, for military purposes. I don't know which facilities are being discussed here, or whether those facilities are primarily military or civilian. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right? If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel. permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally. Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago For some people, "war crimes" isn't a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they've painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant. Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago (2 children) Oil facilities can be legitimate targets, if they're producing fuels, other petroleum products, or generating electricity, for military purposes. I don't know which facilities are being discussed here, or whether those facilities are primarily military or civilian. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] archomrade@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right? If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel. permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally. Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants. permalink fedilink source parent [–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago For some people, "war crimes" isn't a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they've painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant. Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Pretty sure their military uses electricity and water, too, so that means their electrical grid and water supply are fair game, right? If they're shared by civilian infrastructure then they're probably using it as a shield, so that means it's OK to hit them anyway permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel. permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally. Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) I don't know. Has targeting those types of infrastructure historically been categorized as a war crime? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel. permalink fedilink source parent [–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally. Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago No, dual-use facilities are generally regarded as legitimate targets so long as civilian workers are not explicitly targeted in the way one might target enemy personnel. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 point 2 years ago The point is that the law is difficult to administer clearly because 'dual-use' is too vague. Russia's been hitting electrical facilities all across Ukraine for over a year, and they've been saying they're all legal military targets, even if they're serving a major city (including hospitals, critical civilian services, ect). The more hawkish crowd here is pretty selective when classifying war crimes depending on the parties involved, and even the UNSC is unable to make clear rulings (they don't have any teeth, anyway), especially when they involve an American-backed ally. Israel has been hitting schools, Mosques, orphanages, ect, and they've thus far gotten away with it by arguing they were being used by Hamas. I wouldn't put much stock in what's being said is 'fair-play' or not. It's all questionable and it's all an escalation that nobody really wants. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago For some people, "war crimes" isn't a legal theory, but a moral outrage. In this case, they've painted themselves into a corner because Joe Biden is already fully responsible for genocide, so adjudicating a few war crimes seems petty and irrelevant. Never mind that a conflict in the same time-zone as Israel, energy infrastructure is a primary target for both sides. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 15 points 2 years ago We’re just going all in on trying to get to WW3 and the Rapture, huh? permalink fedilink source
[–] tortillaPeanuts@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* Relevant articles for Biden's comments on possible Israeli strikes on Iran oil facilities, since OP used a live link: Aljazeera BBC When asked if he would support such strikes, Mr Biden said: "We're discussing that. I think that would be a little... anyway." permalink fedilink source
[+] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world [B] -6 points 2 years ago The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Guardian: MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom Wikipedia about this source Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/oct/03/israel-lebanon-hezbollah-war-strikes-live-updates-middle-east-crisis Media Bias Fact Check | bot support permalink fedilink source
all 10 comments