Well… in the case we’re talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not ‘propagandised ideology’.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.
If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.
The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence.
If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.
Also not a technicality, lol.
Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.
But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests.
And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests.
You’re almost there! In fact, it’s actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn’t at all limited to the “westerners”.
Well… in the case we’re talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not ‘propagandised ideology’.
The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests. The same as the US is doing now with Iran, has been doing for the past century. You are very much acting through your propagandised ideology by aligning with their narrative.
If NATO or the USA were to care about international law or human rights, they would have acted through the UN Security Council, which they consult and insist on at any time a state of the global south does something they don‘t like. They usually do not apply to themselves, though.
But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests. The latest examples would be Palestine and Iran, also to an extend Ukraine.
The fact that human rights violations have occurred is not a factor for the global north‘s decision to exert power through violence. If it was, they wouldn‘t extend or explicitly cause more suffering by indiscriminately breaking international law at will, independent from the UN. But that’s what the NATO did by bombing Yugoslavia.
Also not a technicality, lol.
Your argument is the internalised version of reality, that a normal westener grows up to have, through the environment they live in, the media they consume.
But we are not the good guys. And that‘s not an empty phrase, it‘s a fact. We are the baddies. And sadly, you argue for the baddies on the internet.
Edit: lol, if that doesn‘t fit:
Merz: Iran should not be protected by international law
And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there’s no-one else to benefit from it?
You’re almost there! In fact, it’s actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn’t at all limited to the “westerners”.