“What about…?” Does not make for a good argument.

When the comment is a response to another that justifies current attacks on Iran because Irani proxies killed US, it matters a big F'ing deal that those were in retaliation of the US historically scuttling Iranian parliamentary democracy and killing 50K Iranians by way of chemical munitions alone through its proxy.

▲

akdev1l an hour ago | parent [-]

No it doesn’t.

The post was replying to this:

>Iran doesn't use any of these to attack America.

This is false, as the post explained.

Saying “what about the US attacking Iran?” does not change the above being false. In fact the US attacking Iran does not change the above false either.

Even if we accept both things as true:

1. Iran has historically attacked the US 2. The US has historically destabilized/attacked Iran

It doesn’t change the fact that “Iran does not use any of these (proxy groups) to attack America” is a false statement.

Skip me with your emotional arguments because I’ll just think you’re posturing and just trying to advance your agenda :-)

	▲	srean an hour ago \| parent [-]
		There is a difference between "attack" (that has a connotation of being unprovoked and in bad faith) and "retaliation" against acts of drawing first blood. More so if those primary attacks had 50K killed by way of proxies (100K according to more realistic estimates). Sometimes, what one dishes out, comes back. If it does, rest of the world thinks it is only fair. Yes Iran has been retaliating, very weakly, to counterbalanced attacks on itself by the US and its proxies. There is not much doubt on who acted in bad faith first.