So did you.

US agreed to bring it before the UNSC, not to protect them. Russia has veto powers.

'93 Budapest memorandum off the top of my head if anyone wants to look it up and bring the quote forward.

I usually like those.

Not that one though

Heard a podcast episode from this girls mum. Fuckinf depressing reality.

Its a very weird line.

Back in ww2 when the allies ran the bombing campaign of German cities the “justification” was that civilians were being used to manufacture arms for the armed forces therefore a part of the military logistics network, and in fairness yes they were - like the British were at the start.

On the other hand it is a deliberate attack on civilians who are not in uniform, not part of the armed forces and not combatants. You could quite easily follow this path to everyone who pays tax or trades with that country as supporting the war effort.

Going at it from a different direction, terrorism is defined as non state actor, using violence against civilians, for a political objective. Therefore terrorism.

Is it justified - probably not but neither is much of warfare. Proportional but didn’t minimize civilian casualties.

Is it terrorism - leaning towards yes.

We did hold up our end.

We brought it before the UNSC, Russia vetoed any proposal. That was our agreement, Russia did not hold up theirs.

This is why the VETO power needs to go.

America promised to bring it before the UNSC, which they did.

93 Budapest memorandum if you wanna read

Knew I was missing something.

Kinda seems like a moot clause considering Russia has veto powers in the UNSC.

And that the US would protect them if attacked.

'93 Budapest protocol I believe

While yes, fuck Russia Putin, if the drones were still up they were still technically armed and a combatant.

If they had surrendered, different story. But then again, if I surrendered and still carried my assault rifle have I surrendered?

I think the LOAC and geneva conventions, along with UN charter need to be updated for a modern world.

I didn’t mention Gaza, why is that your point?

Its terrorism when its a non state actor using violence to achieve political objectives. Its war when its state v state.

Its it actually a war yet or we still pretending it’s not?

Yup. And yet some how rockets are still happily coming in both directions. Same two choices remain.

Israel has two realistic options

• de escalate, don’t retaliate and watch them keep going.

• escalate, retaliate, and give Iran the same two choices.

Didn’t we do this in COD 2? Might have been 1.

Though it started with lion king.

Nope

Devils advocate.

How many peaces, truces, agreements in that area have ever meant something?

Looked through history, they aren’t a bot.

Did you look, or just assume because you disagree?

Apparently that doesn’t matter.

Good on you for looking at facts that support you objectively.

Id argue that 4% is why it needs to be used.

Im not telling you to speak it fluently, but if you asked the general population if they use Maori at least once on a daily basis it would be much higher that 4%.

Or just simply remember its like sign language - if its all people want to or can “speak” and an official language they should be disadvantaged.