So you would amend the grandparent comment that "countries need to start responding to cyberattacks" with an "...unless those cyberattacks are a response to some other alleged aggression"?
I'm talking about the general principle here. I'm saying what you are essentially claiming is "countries should respond to cyberattacks [...] unless those cyberattacks are warranted". I'm not interested in discussing whether they were warranted or not in the case of Iran.
The particulars of the case you're trying to argue about Iran are irrelevant -- what matters is that you feel there are exceptions. Gotcha.
I see your initial comment got flagged and you also acted very defensively when replying to others, so I'll leave you to it.
A) allow Israel to strike Iran directly using kinetic means.
B) prevent Israel from doing so and likely give Iran the capability to arm weapons with nuclear warheads.
C) an option C. Stuxnet.
Which option in your opinion is most proportionate and least damaging? Either A) or B) would upset power balances in the Middle East leading to war between nations.
In other words, "We need to do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
What is an illegal attempt to do something? Who decides what is legal?
Hmmm.... does the death come with chocolate on the side?
Seriously, more dictatorial states with nuclear weapons in the middle east aren't going to lead to more happiness, fairness, or understanding... any more than arming crips and bloods in South Central. Unless you believe that earlier nuclear annihilation is preferable for humanity, it is objectively bad.
One might as well argue that importing cocaine to create the crack epidemic and fund the Contras was morally neutral.
The idea that Israel should be disarmed of its nukes is a nonstarter in Washington.
This conflict has nothing to do with "happiness, fairness, or understanding" and everything to do with Washington's and Tel Aviv's power over the region.
The idea that Israel is a "dictatorial state" has no relation to reality.
The NPT doesn't state anything about Israel. You should read the actual treaty instead of posting misinformation. Israel isn't a signatory and is thus not prohibited from developing nuclear weapons.
Why would other countries sign the NPT that locks up nuclear power with the 5 superpowers. Because they would be punished if they didn't. Why didn't Israel need to sign it? Because Israel would face zero punishment for not signing. Israel is actually more free than the 5 super powers to pursue any and every kind of nuclear strategy. Their status is actually higher than all of the 5 super powers! You can argue that Israel is not even mentioned in the NPT. But that's the magic.
And Iran was getting punished by the US after the Shah was deposed. Why should Iran adhere to the NPT in such circumstances? Note that Obama got Iran to agree to curtail their nuclear program by promising to stop punishing them. Just because you have a text and signatures, does not mean that there was no immoral, bullying and coercion involved.
As an aside, what are the legal implications of USA organizing a coup to depose elected prime minister Mossadegh of iran? Eisenhower organized riots that got 300 people killed in the process. Any legal implications, as per any international treaty? The US puppet Shah then signed the NPT. Sounds about as perfectly legal and proper as it can possibly be.
Sorry to rain on your jingoism parade.
"The US and Israel are no different from Iran" and other unsubstantiated claims of moral equivalency are neither nuanced or sophisticated.
2. As stated above, Iran openly calls for destruction of the state of israel. To my understanding, “wiping Israel off the map” in that sense isn’t the same thing as calling for genocide. It’s called regime change. I don’t think I need to go through a list of every example wherein the US has done regime change, but suffice to say, Israel and the US have been attempting overthrow of the Iranian regime since its inception.
2. As I’ve already stated, I'm sure the regime that supports Hezbollah and hosts international Holocaust denial conferences has a nuanced and sophisticated position on the extermination of Jewish people and is fully deserving of all the charity you are extending to them.
Note that Iran still hasn’t violated the NPT. If all that matters to you is international law, they can continue their enrichment program until they are ready to make a weapon and then just withdraw from the treaty.
2. Neither of those things are the same thing as advocating/desiring genocide.
Yes, this is how treaties work. Countries that don't sign the treaties aren't subject to them.
> Neither of those things are the same thing as advocating/desiring genocide.
Your defense of Holocaust denial and suicide bombing is quite remarkable.
Your points are dishonest and sloppy, and this subject is too serious to just accept it.
This subject is serious, but you are the one being dishonest about it.