President Obama calls the occupation of the British Embassy in Teheran as a ‘totally unacceptable behavior’.

I agree.

But let us look at other ‘totally unacceptable behavior’ versus ‘absolutely acceptable behavior’:

‘Unacceptable’: Entering a diplomatic mission in protest.
‘Acceptable’: Embargo including cutting banking and airline relations, where first of all the ‘normal population’ will
suffer. ‘Countries under embargo do not need any spare-parts for their planes’ thus endangering again
the lives of the normal population.

‘Unacceptable’: The killing of Col. Ghaddafi.
‘Acceptable’: Killing of anyone, guilty or not, by ‘remote control’ (drone attacks).

‘Unacceptable’: Home made ‘rockets’ fired blindly in the direction of Israel.
‘Acceptable’: Creating ‘Ghettos’ and withholding civil rights of occupied citizens for decades.

‘etc.’ I think the reader will understand my line of thinking. There would be lots and lots of possible examples.

Again: I agree that all the above ‘unacceptable’ things are actually ‘unacceptable’. .

However, for instance I would consider the killing of Iraqi troops who threw away their weapons and run for their lives out of Kuwait in the first Gulf war a war crime for which some senior officers should have been sent to jail.

The continued saying of ‘oops we are sorry’ for all the Civilians (and soldiers of allied nations) killed are equally ‘not acceptable’. The invention of new words such as ‘collateral damage’ does not solve any real problems.

What we continuously try to seek is ‘Equal Justice for All’.