How does the attacked country being a “paper tiger” influence your judgement of whether it’s shitty or not to attack it? Is it less shitty to attack a country because it’s perceived as being weaker? Is it only shitty when the attacked country is able to defend itself? Why? That would make the Israeli genocide on Palestinians “less shitty” too, since you know, “Israel has been beating the shit out of them for years now.”
It’s an interesting moral compass you’ve got there.
I read his post as “as shitty as this is, it’s not likely to break out into a full scale war we’ll get pulled into”. It’s not about it being morally okay, or at least I didn’t take it that way.
Exactly. Israel (and the US) will bully Iran but it’s not going to turn into WW3, as some commenters are suggesting. Iran just isn’t very threatening militarily anymore.
How does the attacked country being a “paper tiger” influence your judgement of whether it’s shitty or not to attack it? Is it less shitty to attack a country because it’s perceived as being weaker? Is it only shitty when the attacked country is able to defend itself? Why? That would make the Israeli genocide on Palestinians “less shitty” too, since you know, “Israel has been beating the shit out of them for years now.”
It’s an interesting moral compass you’ve got there.
I read his post as “as shitty as this is, it’s not likely to break out into a full scale war we’ll get pulled into”. It’s not about it being morally okay, or at least I didn’t take it that way.
Exactly. Israel (and the US) will bully Iran but it’s not going to turn into WW3, as some commenters are suggesting. Iran just isn’t very threatening militarily anymore.
Ahh, ok, got it. So it’s out of an extraordinary callous attitude where bombing of people is shitty when and only when they impact my life.
I think you’re putting words in their mouth with that view. That’s not what was said at all.
It’s the “I’m the center of the world and this does not look like it’s going to affect ME so everything is alright” point of view