Mastodawn

Raymond Francis Mar 10

What right will we have to criticize Putin if he kills Ukrainian president Zelenskyy?

From a legal standpoint, the US has illegally killed the leader of Iran in an illegal war which our leaders are not even criticizing. They are just accepting that the US takes out a leader they do not like, thereby destabilizing a nation of 93 million people.

International law does not allow this, but if we do not uphold international law, what boundaries do we have left to limit dictators like Putin?

Lats (314 ppm)Mar 10

@randahl Putin has probably realised that he needs to keep an eye on his own security too. I wonder if Donny has given thought to it. No leader is as safe as they were before Donny declared holy war against Iran.

@Lats @randahl Why should he? The orange dictator loves him

Lats (314 ppm)Mar 10

@Giliell @randahl maybe but he is unhinged, but that said, there are more people out there than Donny to think about.

Paul - Antifa. LGBTQ+ safe.Mar 10

@randahl My country (Netherlands) is almost as guilty in this illegal war as 'we' send a warship to protect the (real) agressors.

Linda Rose Smit Mar 10

@paulk @randahl sorry maar je zit er naast vwb de Evertsen.

ᴮᵉⁿ ᴿᵒʸᶜᵉVOTE IN THE PRIMARIES Mar 10

2 things

1. that also means we can kill putin

2. there's all sorts of countries, some obeying international law, some not. that the usa turned into a vile criminal country doesn't mean the law abiding ones should be impressed. also, russia was already not one of the law abiding countries, and never felt limits

it has already tried to kill zelensky a number of times

there's a wikipedia page for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Volodymyr_Zelenskyy

conservative estimates are 2-3 tries. up to ~12 tries

Assassination attempts on Volodymyr Zelenskyy - Wikipedia

@benroyce @randahl It also opens Trump to assassination by any of the foreign regimes. And he slighted quite a few already. His only hope is competence of Secret Service/CIA because wider international community will do nothing past expressing “deep concern”.

@pointlessone @benroyce @randahl

I'm waiting for someone to honor their oath to the Constitution.

Joe ❌👑Mar 10

@randahl Those of us who consistently oppose political assassination and wars of choice have every right. Russia's attack on Ukraine was wrong; Israel and the US's attack on Iran is wrong.

GulfofMexico Mar 10

@randahl The problem with the concept of “international law” is that it’s always been voluntary. The closest the world has ever come to enforceable international law was the First International Peace Conference at The Hague. Participant nations were willing to limit things like dum dum bullets, but when it came to real armament limitations and agreeing to binding arbitration in place of war, the “great nations,” namely the US, UK, France, Germany, and Austria-Hungary refused to consider such a notion. Russia, whose Tsar, had initiated the conference, was the only major power to promote binding arbitration as a concept. Neither the League of Nations, nor the United Nations has ever attempted to force nations to avoid war. THIS is why Ukraine is in the mess it’s in right now. THIS is why we have a rogue American president invading countries at will.

Violet Madder Mar 10

@CAman @randahl

The "rules-based international order" was a fantasy. Those of us naive enough to think the people in charge weren't monsters, assumed it must be real-- because anything less is just too absurd and horrifying to contemplate.

Paul Wermer, CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Mar 10

@randahl exactly this.

Шуро Mar 10

@randahl to be honest it won't matter much (or vice versa) in context of the war already happening.

National leaders are chiefs of command of their respective armed forces and thus expected and high-value targets just as other military personnel. Trump himself isn't an exception. They are not noncombatants.

Wars themselves are the problem. Or how certain nations feel free to use force abroad (which eventually causes wars).

Iron Bug Mar 11

@shuro @randahl >how certain nations feel free to use force abroad
this has nothing to do with nations. this is usually a decision of a bunch of some crooks that seized the power in a country and nobody ever asked nations.

Шуро | Deko Friends

@[email protected]Mar 10

exactly right. and trump's pal Putin was giving Iran all the info about where to hit our military bases in our friendly Gulf states. Geesh. trump can't buy a clue.

Blyatskrieg Mar 10

@BillMcGuire @randahl trump doesn't care. He wears his merch at grievings of soldiers that were killed because of him.

@[email protected]Mar 10

yes, that is well publicized. he has no situational knowledge at his age or the manners required to be our leader.

@randahl Rules are very important and other people really need to follow them, but since they're currently inconvenient to what I want I get an exception.

Schneckbert 🐌Mar 10

@randahl I lost track as when we stopped holding Politicians responsible for their actions or failings. To an extend in some countries this still seems to be the case, but under the line it's a very disappointing result.
After all; these people are supposed to represent what the majority wants or at least agrees to (to an extend).
In my brain, just arond covid things started to go sideways very fast, very extreme - but I may just have been to occupied with myself before that...

@randahl angry but friendly phone calls

el Celio 🇪🇺 🇺🇦Mar 10

@randahl as if putin needs any justification to kill Zelensky.

This line of reasoning is dangerous.

@randahl International law is a set of rules and regulations created by great powers and works only if it's enforced by great powers. The problem starts when great powers leaders are dictators, then international law exist on paper, but no one to enforce. This is the time we are living in.

nilsmielke ⁂Mar 10

@randahl …or Trump.

Blyatskrieg Mar 10

@randahl with "we" you mean us citizens, I guess? Everything else is just whataboutism. And "legal standpoint" isn't a real thing internationally, who would enforce it?

Russell 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇦🍉Mar 10

@bubi352 @randahl

But everyone else BUT the US and Russia are sticking to it!

@randahl You mean like preventing Putin from killing Nawalny?

To be clear: international law would be great, but right now it's dead. And game theory teaches us that it's not advantageous to be the only one sticking to it. It's just disappointing.

Exactly this indeed…

@randahl Zelensky should attempt to kill Putin and I expect Putin is doing his level best to kill Zelensky.

I don't think that part of international law is ethical or moral. I say it's wrong.

They're in a declared war. They both send others to die. They are both ultimately soldiers and targets.

Sending others to die puts your own head on the block. Live by, die by. A good general accepts their role and consequences.

LukefromDC Mar 10

@randahl Well, I would cheer if Zelinsky managed to kill Putin. I'd cheer even more if he was killed by a furious mob of Russians fed up with war and conscription, but the point is that Putin arrives in Hell. How he gets there is secondary,

Linda Rose Smit Mar 10

@LukefromDC @randahl hell is here.

LukefromDC Mar 10

@lindarosesmit @randahl Yes it is, and Trump and Putin are both devils

Martijn Vos Mar 10

Putin has tried several times to have Zelensky assassinated. So his complaints about the assassination of Khamenei are hypocrisy.

Furthermore, Khamenei was an illegitimate ruler, responsible for the deaths of thousands of people in recent protests. Please don't pretend he was a normal, legitimate leader. His death is fully deserved, and the Iranian people deserve freedom.

The problem with Trump's attack is that he doesn't care about those people and has no plan for regime change. His attack will hurt a lot of people inside and outside Iran, but not accomplish anything beyond making a bad situation worse. But if he does manage to overthrow that regime, I will applaud it. It would be the one positive thing he'd accomplish. But that doesn't excuse the horrible things he's done, in bringing oppression to the US, destabilising the world, and of course his pedophilia and many other personal crimes.

Russell 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇦🍉Mar 10

So you support the indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas in Terhan and beyond? Shameful!

Martijn Vos Mar 10

@russellt @randahl

Me? No. Why would anyone support that?

Bombing civilian targets hurts the very people we should be helping. That's the idiocy of Trump's plan: just bomb everything and hope that will change anything. It won't.

Cebeyon Mattahs Mar 10

@randahl what right? By who's Authority

@randahl What the US has done is worse than simply killing an enemies leader during war, they did it when there were ongoing negotiations. What are countries such as China meant to take from this? That peace talks are to get you to lower your guard so they can attack, and international exercises are so they can kill you when unarmed? Yes, the US isn't condemned because we don't want to admit the alliance is dead, but the perfidy is much worse than regicide.

Linda Rose Smit Mar 10

@randahl by we do you nean the US or all other countries?

@randahl Putin is the aggressor, he can always be criticized, and by his actions he should definitely be free game. As for the Iranian leaders, this is a war caused by Trump and Netanyahu, it's unacceptable, no one has to unwillingly side with this.

Grzegorz Kulik Mar 10

@randahl While I agree with the sentiment, we also have to remember that Zelensky is a democratically elected head of state who did not massacre thousands of people. The law tends to treat differently those who break it.

John Ahlroos Mar 10

@grzegorz @randahl

I think that is a strawman argument. Following that line of thought then it would be ok to assasinate Netanyaho as well. He is also wanted by the international court in Hague for his atrocities in Gaza.

That is, if we believe assasinating foreign leaders based on how they lead their country is accceptable.

Grzegorz Kulik Mar 10

@john @randahl Not arguing for or against anything, just pointing out the tendency.

Drew 🇵🇭 ♾️Mar 10

@randahl LOL...

"What right will we have to criticize Putin if he kills Ukrainian president Zelenskyy?"

I assume the "we" means Americans...

None whatsoever. Enjoy the fruits of your voting patterns.

@randahl totally agree, Starmer may be getting flack but at least he has tried to uphold it hat has kept us all safe for decades.

Russell 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇦🍉Mar 10

@Trabs @randahl

Starmer has the spine of a jellyfish!

@russellt @randahl

Flexibility is good and those jellyfish pack a sting when needed.

Anton Gerasimov Mar 10

@randahl He absolutely would if he could, he never cared about international law.

I agree that Trumps attack on Iran was stupid and costed lives without seemingly achieving anything good, but let's not pretend dictators will behave if we show them good example.

Fabian Transchel Mar 10

@randahl You are completely correct.

However, there is ample evidence that Russia tried to assassinate Selenskyj.

Putin would do well to be *more* afraid.

ProScience 🇪🇺Mar 10

None.

And they cannot complain if they themselves were to be killed:

Trump
von der Leyen
Merz
Meloni
Macron
Starmer
Carney
Martin
etc. etc.

The only ones who could are Sanchez, the Slovianian and Swiss guys, the Irish president.

Estarriol, Terrorist Dragon Mar 10

according to scuttlebutt, he has tried a few times.

But it also means killing trump is on the table.

@randahl None at all. Not that he hasn't been trying.

At this point we have lost the right to criticise the state sponsored killing of any Western leader bar Spain, and possibly Switzerland. I'd generally give Ireland a bye, too.

You know, I'm comfortable with that, though I can imagine the outcry (and the dance of blame shifting) should it actually happen.

To be clear, I am not calling for it, but we do absolutely deserve it.

Schroedingers_Cat Mar 10

@randahl If we can't limit dictators like Trump, we cannot limit dictators like Putin.

Because they are the same.