I didn't miss you saying that, but I also noticed that you replied to my original post with an unequivocal answer - so you don't support doing it, but you also think it's OK? Did I understand that correctly?
In any case, I should perhaps have been clearer:
What makes it OK for someone to hijack Iranian government websites based on hearsay they read on the internet, but makes it bad for the Chinese to hijack the Dalai Lama's computers?
I wasn't talking about you in particular - you did seem to defend those that carried out the attacks. You still haven't answered that question.
Moral relativism as a popular meme is very recent in the historical record
Who talked about moral relativism? Not me. The point of my question was twofold:
* One person's right is another's wrong, and that arriving at some sort of greater truth is something we (as a civilisation) haven't been able to figure out yet. This has nothing to do with moral relativism as far as I'm concerned, and I still don't think it's an easy question to answer.
* We only have partial, incomplete and possibly biased information about what's going on in Iran, the same way that Chinese DDoSers' understanding of Tibet is probably heavily skewed by the information they have access to.
That's why I don't think it's OK for us to DDoS Iranian government sites, and then complain about Chinese hackers doing it to anyone else.
Life is something you participate in. You have an obligation to make the choice.
I think it's perfectly fine not to have a strong opinion about something that you don't know enough about.