The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked
Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.
If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).
A attacks B.
B attacks A.
A and C: “Look at this guy over here, what are we gonna do with him?”
The inherent implication is B had no right to respond to A, and the inherent implication of that is that A should be allowed to do what they want and B should just take it.
These are basic inferences anyone can draw from the events and the articles linked.
As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.
If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.
I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.
Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.
Citation needed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council
For the other user, could you please cite in the article a statement that supports “without consequence”?
When it comes to Israel vs Palestinians, an organization dedicated to preserving the status quo is precisely who we should ignore.
Ftfy
It’s actually pretty obvious in context:
Israel attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria, killing some people.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-bombs-iran-embassy-syria-iranian-commanders-among-dead-2024-04-01/
Iran responds, targeting rural areas with no loss of life and no harm done.
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-15-24/index.html
The US and Israel now feel Iran has no right to have responded to being attacked and are discussing a “proper response”.
(This article.)
Op’s conclusion is sound. US ally Israel can attack anyone they like and not suffer repercussions.
Thank you for responding, however:
Is not supported by the article. I noticed there is no quote from the article to support this about the US, Israel, or the Atlantic Council (which is the original claim, so no it is not sound). I find that is indicative that the claim lacks factual backing.
If you can cite the article (not broadly claim “context”) or anything else related to the Atlantic councils view as the above user said, that would lend itself to the claim (about the Atlantic council).
Follow the logic:
A attacks B.
B attacks A.
A and C: “Look at this guy over here, what are we gonna do with him?”
The inherent implication is B had no right to respond to A, and the inherent implication of that is that A should be allowed to do what they want and B should just take it.
These are basic inferences anyone can draw from the events and the articles linked.
As ignored again, this is being levied against the Atlantic council publication. None of the implications (uncited) indict the Atlantic council of feeling like the US/Israel can act militarily without consequence, nor support that there was any notion of there being no rights to respond. This is unsourced opinion that is used to bad mouth the Atlantic council publication.
If you can claim “context” without a citation then my “context” is just as good (and trumps yours). See why we need sources for our claims? Because this is not substantive discussion. It’s aimed to dissuade readers from going through the information in the article, claiming the Atlantic council is “batshit insane” to cite another user.
Again, it’s right there in the headline:
“Here’s how Israel and the US should respond.”
In other words:
“Iran isn’t allowed to respond to an Israeli attack, here’s how to teach them a lesson.”
I’m understanding you are unable to back up your claim with factual information from the article. Even what you wrote requires editorialization to meet what you claim. The title makes no mention of rights to attack, and I can see you as well are unsuccessfully trying to defend the idea that the atlantic council holds these views, or that they’re even represented in the article.
Perhaps your point would find a better home with the user claiming they’re “batshit insane” since they both assume the exact same level of evidence.