This is 100% true and a major pet peeve of mine.

What an absolutely idiotic statement

On what respect? He didn’t have the moral clarity not to join a nazi organization when he was young. He was given a chance to redeem herself but he failed. In fact, he pushed for a doctrine that directly led to widespread harassment of anti-genocide activists and illegal travel bans and malicious prosecutions of them.

Where exactly in Habermas is such an idea expressed?

Thoroughly refuted? Sorry, but no

There is an open PR against upstream

How did it feel the first time you or someone on your team built a container and ran it?

Absolutely no reason to believe that

Name a government in the OECD that’s fundamentally opposed to this intervention

Most European governments have already, in their own (weak) way expressed that this intervention isn't legitimate according to international law.

Which international law? Where's the book of international law?

Seriously? There you go:

https://legal.un.org/avl/studymaterials/handbook/english/boo...

That's just book one, BTW.

And if you violate those laws, what happens?

Denmark? They already condemned it, and are also repeatedly threatened by the schoolyard bullies

Translation: "Name a Zionist-holocaust-of-babies-supporting-pedophile-rapist-infested-government in the OECD that’s fundamentally opposed to this intervention"

Great moral measuring stick...

Without justification?

idk, is "drug trafficking" enough justification to topple a country? I don't really think so. And the claim is rather spurious anyway...

Ignoring the results of an election seems like a reasonable justification to topple a specific leader (no country is being toppled here)