That sounds incredibly stupid by Iran if true.
AFAIK most European Jews do not support how Iran behaves either against Gaza or Iran.
This can only make the attitude against Iran worse in Europe. And also AFAIK most here are against the Israel / USA attack on Iran.
Not so much because we like Iran, but because Iran is an innocent victim in this war.
The iranian civilians are innocent victims in this war, their leaders are not and i wouldnt have a problem with Israel and USA destroing this regime if it werent for the civilians.
The Iranian leadership is not innocent, they are a crazy bunch of maniacs, but in this war they are innocent.
It would be nice for everybody if Iran could get back to democracy. But having a patriarchy that was instated by the people, is not an excuse to attack or even sanction a country. It's actually against international law. As international law guarantees the self determination and right to trade of any sovereign country.
That right was taken away from Iran without good reason by USA as soon as the patriarchy was established in 1979. Overturning the USA instated dictator.
That right was taken away from Iran without good reason by USA as soon as the patriarchy was established in 1979.
Which is funny because they helped to establish the patriarchy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter%27s_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini
Human rights violations most definitely justify sanctions.
International law also guarntees human rights and self-determination for everyone (yes, including iranian women). It also says that governments have a duty to prptect human dignity.
Also the right to trade is not about being able to force others to buy or sell you stuff. Other Nations are also sovereign and can decide with whom to trade.
The right of trade is about blockades. You're not allowed to block the trade of two other nations. The Iran blockading the Hormuz is a violation. (To be clear: they are allowed to block the US and Israel because there the law of war applies, but blocking Iraqi or Korean ships, with which they are not at war, that is illegal)
but in this war they are innocen
They try to build nukes and they fund terror groups in the region, quite the opposit of innocent.
They try to build nukes
That's a lie, and everybody knows it. And even if they were trying to build nukes, can you blame them?
What right does USA have to deny others what they themselves have.
You are making excuses for USA to attack countries without reason. Something that will make more countries want nukes not fewer.
That's a lie, and everybody knows it.
They have a nuclear Programm and everybody knows it. They have 60% enriched Uranium and everybody knows, that you dont need that much for civilian use.
What right does USA have to deny others what they themselves have.
I dont support the attack on Iran.
There are a lot of Countries with nuclear weapons who shouldnt have them, but I am way more comfortable with the Usa having nukes, than with a bunch of terrorists.
They have a nuclear Programm and everybody knows it.
That is just the worst bullshit to respond with. Yes they have nuclear power, and they use enriched uranium for that. So what?
You don't use 60% enriched uranium for nuclear bombs either, also Iran had agreed to dilute the Uranium as part of a deal before the attack.
I dont support the attack on Iran.
Why then are you defending Israeli and Trump talking points?
You sure act like you are supporting it by defending it.
Why then are you defending Israeli and Trump talking points?
Those are not Israeli and Trump talking points, many Nations including France, Uk and Germany say the same.
And its easy to make weapons grade uranium if you already have 60% enriched uranium. They have no credible use for this, other than nukes.
Not debating the socond point, or the general nocence of the Iranian government vis-a-vis human rights and such, but there is little evidence for the first except for vague statements by the Israeli government and the Pedo in Chief's assmunchers (nothing against assmunching in general).
So far we only hear statements from one side, the prosecutors. Where is the defendants' side? This is terrible journalism.
This is Iran we are talking about.
I mean, look at who is the new head of their military :
The defendents' identities weren't made public, to preserve their privacy.
It's even in the article:
"Reuters could not immediately contact lawyers for the suspects."
How do you expect Reuters to get their story at this time?
Neither were the federal prosecutors' identities. And yet we hear their side of the story.
Imho Reuters shouldn't have publicised this article at all.
Reuters is a news agency, not a newspaper.
So? I think news agencies also should be held to like standards as that of newspapers of record.
News and information from Europe 🇪🇺
(Current banner: La Mancha, Spain. Feel free to post submissions for banner images.)
(This list may get expanded as necessary.)
Unless they're the only sources, please also avoid The Sun, Daily Mail, any "thinktank" type organization, and non-Lemmy social media (incl. Substack). Don't link to Twitter directly, instead use xcancel.com. For Reddit, use old:reddit:com
(Lists may get expanded as necessary.)
We will use some leeway to decide whether to remove a comment.
If need be, there are also bans: 3 days for lighter offenses, 7 or 14 days for bigger offenses, and permanent bans for people who don't show any willingness to participate productively. If we think the ban reason is obvious, we may not specifically write to you.
If you want to protest a removal or ban, feel free to write privately to the admin that applied the rule (check modlog first to find who was it.)