Stuart Niven

Manchester | Fitness & business owner Evidence-led views on politics, culture & performance. Calm analysis. Zero fluff.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@nicolelampert @LeftieStats What you should be investigating is all the brothels his mother owns in north Manchester. That’s the story

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@GreenGreenwich @ZackPolanski That’s like saying. Why don’t people in Liverpool buy the sun newspaper. They never vote conservative like they would never buy that rag paper. So clearly unaware and inept of all surroundings.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@geordiejosh I’m a city fan and I think he’s class. Watched him at Chelsea before he came to you. Really rate him highly. Top talent. England’s best LB by far.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@RitainDevon @ZackPolanski So I present actual fact and evidence and you use charged emotion to try and prove a point. Well played. Good response. Thought provoking and engaging 😂😂

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@narindertweets Do you not see you lose all credibility with that last sentence. No man worth his salt would deny the opening statement. You then lose some with that click bait.

The facts speak for themselves. Don’t ruin a good statement

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Almost every line of this is wrong.

Soleimani wasn’t some peace negotiator, he was the head of Iran’s IRGC Quds Force, responsible for coordinating militias that killed hundreds of coalition troops.

The strike happened after Iranian-backed militias attacked US forces and stormed the US embassy in Baghdad.

And the idea Arab states were angry? Many Gulf states quietly welcomed Iran being checked.

You’re repeating propaganda, not history.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Those comparisons don’t work.

WW2 involved states invading other states. Rwanda and Bosnia involved genocide already legally recognised by international courts.

In the current case:

• No international court has ruled genocide.
• Hamas & Hezbollah are non-state armed groups targeting civilians.
• Responsibility to Protect requires UN Security Council authorisation.

Historical analogies aren’t a substitute for the actual legal framework.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

You’re mixing up several areas of international law.

1️⃣ UN Charter Article 51 allows states to act in self-defence after an armed attack, including against states that fund, arm or direct proxy groups carrying out those attacks. Iran has funded and armed Hezbollah, Hamas and other militias for decades.

2️⃣ Responsibility to Protect (2005) does NOT allow countries to unilaterally attack another state. Any military action under R2P requires UN Security Council authorisation.

3️⃣ And again, no international court has ruled Israel is committing genocide.

So invoking genocide and R2P to justify unilateral attacks is simply not how international law works.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

You’re misunderstanding R2P.

The Responsibility to Protect doctrine (2005) does NOT give individual states the right to unilaterally attack another country. Any military intervention under R2P must be authorised by the UN Security Council.

That’s literally written into the doctrine itself.

Also, ‘fighting back’ by groups like Hezbollah or Hamas firing rockets at civilians is not lawful resistance under international law, it’s classified as terrorism and indiscriminate attacks.

Quoting international law while misrepresenting it isn’t the win you think it is.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Two big problems with this.

1️⃣ Article 8 of the Genocide Convention does NOT give states the right to attack another country. It allows states to appeal to the UN, not launch missiles or proxy wars. Unilateral attacks violate UN Charter Article 2(4).

2️⃣ Hezbollah was created, armed and funded by Iran in 1982 and Hamas has received Iranian funding and weapons since the 1990s. These aren’t random groups Israel ‘picked’, they’re Iranian proxies.

Also worth noting: no international court has ruled Israel guilty of genocide.

Quoting international law while getting it completely wrong is… bold.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

@deathpigeon @ZackPolanski ‘Unprovoked’ while Iran funds Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and multiple militias attacking Israel, US bases and global shipping. That’s not self-defence. That’s proxy warfare.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Lots of insults, zero evidence. If ‘a dozen hospitals’, a ‘pharmaceutical plant’ and an ‘oil refinery causing toxic fallout over Tehran’ had actually been hit, every major international news outlet would be reporting it. They aren’t. That’s the difference between facts and online fantasy.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Yes, to have a trial the suspect must be present.

But the International Criminal Court has no police force. Arrests only happen if a state with jurisdiction actually detains the person and transfers them to The Hague.

Israel also isn’t a party to the Rome Statute, which is why these cases involve long jurisdictional disputes first.

So it’s not quite as simple as “someone on X demands an arrest and a trial happens.”

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

That’s not quite how the International Criminal Court works.

A prosecutor can request a warrant if they believe there are reasonable grounds. Judges then decide whether the legal threshold is met. That still isn’t a conviction — it’s the start of a legal process where evidence is tested.

It’s the same principle used in every legal system: allegation → investigation → trial → verdict.

X declaring someone guilty tends to skip a few of those steps.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

Blimey. That escalated quickly.

For the record, self-defence in international law comes from Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, which allows states to respond to armed attacks.

The October 7 attacks by Hamas killed over 1,200 civilians and involved mass hostage-taking. Whether subsequent actions are lawful is exactly what investigations and courts examine.

Shouting “illegal” on X isn’t quite the same thing as proving it.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

“Moral indefensible” is a subjective judgement.

What I’ve described is the legal standard: allegations are tested through evidence and due process, not declared as fact first. That’s the principle used by courts like the International Criminal Court.

International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, applies to everyone. If evidence proves crimes by any party, prosecute them. If it doesn’t, you don’t invent guilt to satisfy a narrative.

That’s not moral evasion. That’s the rule of law.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

An arrest warrant request isn’t the same as an automatic arrest.

The International Criminal Court has no police force. Arrests depend on member states, and Israel isn’t even a party to the court’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute.

That’s why these cases proceed through investigation and legal challenge first. Supporting due process means examining evidence before declaring guilt, exactly the standard international law is built on.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

You’re misunderstanding the point.

Timelines explain causation in a conflict. They don’t justify war crimes. Both things can be true at the same time.

Under the Geneva Conventions, deliberately targeting civilians is illegal whether it’s done by a state or by groups like Hamas. That’s why the October 7 attacks are universally recognised as war crimes.

Allegations against Israel are being examined by the International Criminal Court. If evidence proves crimes, prosecute. If it doesn’t, you don’t declare guilt first.

That’s not “having it both ways.” That’s applying the same legal standard to everyone.

[Stuart Niven @SN1ven]

There isn’t a double standard in what I’ve said.

International humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, applies to all parties in a conflict. Deliberately targeting civilians is illegal whether it’s done by a state or a non-state actor like Hamas.

The October 7 attacks deliberately targeted civilians, something documented by the United Nations and multiple investigations.

Allegations against Israel are being examined by the International Criminal Court. If evidence proves crimes, prosecute. If it doesn’t, you don’t declare guilt first and investigate later.

That’s not inconsistency, that’s the rule of law.