Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Well, military action is actual provocation for military action. So effectively you’re saying no, a speaking event isn’t what anyone would consider a valid provocation for military action.
By thinking about this instead of just jumping in, we’ve walked back from “Israel couldn’t act until now” to “Israel couldn’t make these exact kinds of strikes without all of the actions they’ve taken up until this point” and “Israel was provoked” to “There was no direct provocation for this event but Israel just was obliged not to attack Iran.”
I hope this journey has answered your initial question and concerns. And I’m genuinely glad you’ve walked back the position that speech should be met with bombings, because that’s psychotic.
|
Well no...there are most certainly instances where speech should be met with action. For example, if someone says, I'm going to attack you right now. You have a right to take action to stop that attack. You don't have to sit there and just take it.
Also, I most certainly never said that Iran's congress on holocaust denial was the only provocation. It was one of several mentioned.
Here's a question, how many missiles and bombs, either made or previously possessed by Iran, have struck Israel over the last 20 years?