• KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    To all the people complaining about toothless international law:

    To become binding, law needs law enforcement. Which, in the case of international law, would mean an international police force that has jurisdiction over all the world’s governments, and a mandate to arrest even heads of states if they are suspected of committing a crime.
    For that, they’d need sufficient military power to beat any nation’s armies (which would definitely be deployed to protect the head of state).

    So basically, every time a nation’s leader is suspected of committing a crime against international law (by whom?), a war starts.
    Is that really what you want?

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Do you want international law to do something instead of being a worthless book that everyone ignores?

      yes

    • Dasus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      If we could assume that said international forces were moral and behaved well, fuck yes that’s what I would want.

      There needn’t be a war everytime. The international forces would simply let the country know that they want person X or X, Y and Z and that if they don’t get to, then there’d be war. And all they need to do is give up a person who’s probably actually broken international laws, which aren’t usually minor ones.

      Given that I’ve assumed the morality and good behaviour of this force, then it should be no problem.

      And at that point, there wouldn’t be a need for national armies, if there was an international force that was wholly good and did have the capacity to beat any one other militaries.

      • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        There needn’t be a war everytime. The international forces would simply let the country know that they want person X or X, Y and Z and that if they don’t get to, then there’d be war. And all they need to do is give up a person who’s probably actually broken international laws, which aren’t usually minor ones.

        That worked so well in Afghanistan!

    • Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Or, hear me out… I personally fly out to the asteroid belt, build a space station inside the asteroid Vesta manufacturing Rods from God, and periodically fling them at the military installations and centers of government of nations that make me angry. Maybe I even give my operation a pretentious name, like “Damocles Initiative” or “Office of Government Accountability.”

      Honestly, I see no way this could go wrong. Who watches the watchers? I do.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Being a Hasbara bot must be tough in these challenging times. Just keep screaming incoherent lies and hope people still believe anything the IDF says.

    • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      local pro-Hamas supporter

      Really? Why? I feel like most of these accusations are based on the idea that anti-Israel = pro Hamas

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Linkerbaan is generally less skeptical of Hamas claims and motivations than they probably should be, but calling them pro-Hamas is definitely ridiculous. Signed, someone who clashes with Linkerbaan a lot.

        • TheFonz@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          @Linkerbaan@lemmy.world standard of evidence is…flimsy at best. If something aligns with their narrative, a declaration or statement from an important elected politician is all that is necessary for proof. I fail to see the need to engage with individuals who’s standard for evidence is lower than the Mariana trench. But then again, that’s par the course for most discourse on social media. Evidence is…just a nasty sidenote you need from time to time to uphold the narrative you’ve already formed.

        • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah that was my feeling too. I think there is a push to label people as “pro Hamas” to cast doubt on people they don’t like. As if calling the US response to 9/11 over the top means you support Al Qaeda.

          But of course if the person had a valid reason for saying this I would be happy for them to explain it to me

          • Aceticon@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Every Palestinian is Hamas. Every hole in the ground is a Hamas Tunnel. Every critic of Israel is pro-Hamas

            Those are the foundations of every single piece of Israeli Propaganda out there, directly or indirectly.