“ML: You said “their support of various anti-Western groups in various other territories is 100% defensive.” I don’t think killing Jews at a Social Center in Buenos Aires is “defensive.””
Yes, if you ask me, the reports on this incident never did really add up.
Was someone targeted? Was it a reprisal for another killing? How exactly did it make any sense at all — or are we to gather that we are fighting monsters, who, unlike us, kill for pleasure or for no reason at all?
If it was essentially motivated as part of some larger struggle to achieve security within the bounds of their own territory, then why would it not be right to call it “defensive”?
And it was by proxy, correct? Do we pretend that our agencies have not caused the death of innocents in our own proxy battles?
ML:
Just read “The Iranian Time Bomb,” it’s all there. Several Iranian leaders have been indicted for mass murder, and they are now on the Interpol Watch List. You really should not use “defensive” to describe a bombing attack against Argentinian Jews.
