levi

[levi @Levilou999]

@Sam1345249360 @BRICSinfo The people of Iran standing behind the Regime

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo The US military regularly intercepts, boards, and seizes Iranian oil and gas tankers on the high seas using armed force. Calling Iranian interdictions "terrorism" while treating US/Western tanker seizures as "law enforcement" is a blatant double standard

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Economic Warfare is not "Terrorism": Targeting energy pipelines and commerce supplying hostile belligerents during active state-level military operations is maritime interdiction and economic warfare—a legal framework of state conflict, not non-state terrorism.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Taegets

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Rule 60(f) of the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, merchant vessels or energy tankers that make an effective contribution to an opposing state's war effort or strategic economy lose their civilian protection and become legitimate militar

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Nice try shifting the goalposts, but you still fundamentally misunderstand the Law of Naval Warfare:

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo State actions, naval blockades, and interdictions in international conflicts are classified under the laws of armed conflict, not broad definitions of terrorism—regardless of the state actor involved.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Just Retorte

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo You’ve gone from posting self-defeating maps that say "Occupied," to posting quotes about "Military rule," to admitting "israel took it," to resorting to slurs.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo You posted a snippet trying to define ship blockades as terrorism, ignoring that maritime interdictions during state conflicts fall under international humanitarian law and naval warfare rules (San Remo Manual), not general terrorism definitions.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo You are literally asking me to explain your own posts to you because you've completely lost the plot:

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo What should I Prove ? I explained you everything

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo The Blue wirting „occupied by isreal“ is enough to Show you that you lost the Argument

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Pls dont ragebait

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo You lost on history, you lost on international law, and now you’re just screaming "LOOOL" at a wall. Thanks for playing.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Maritime blockades/interdictions in armed conflict are governed by the laws of naval warfare (San Remo Manual), not generic definitions of terrorism.

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo I proved you to often

[levi @Levilou999]

@Vlamsss @cryptojajaja @BRICSinfo Thanks for providing the UN quote confirming that permanent military occupation and annexation are illegal. Beautiful self-own to wrap this up.