Though I support the attributed conclusion for different reasons, that was never my intention in this section. It was constructed as a similarly structured reply to:so the impression one gets from this is that Israel is seen as "responisble" (whereas Iran is not for whatever reasons) with its WMDs because Israel had been pushed to the limit and still refused to use their WMDs.
The sentence consists of two seperate parts that were put together to echo Art's statement, which also consists of two parts that are linked in a logical argument. My response is meant to dispell Art's implied parallellism between Israel and Iran, by presenting each part in (IMHO) its proper context. It was not meant to be viewed as a comparison between Iran and Israel.lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country.
Very well; however, Art's contention that Israel intends to attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons stems from a single newspaper report. My response, "Israel has so far never used a nuclear weapon..." contradicts Art's contention as such an attack was never carried out, and as far as we know no leader of the US or Israel has argued for it. One can argue that is weak inductive reasoning, but I feel that actions (or lack thereof) speak louder than words (even if they are printed by a News International subsidiary, vis a vis hypocrisy). While I do not discount the possibility that such an attack is planned, I highly doubt any Israeli Prime Minister will authorise such a move.however, the idea that goals do not equate to outcomes in wars, implies that the above claim does not have much substance. This is because, from the complexity of wars, one cannot say whether it was rationality, hypocrisy, morality or .... etc. that triggered the actions/inactions we see during the Yom-Kippur war. As a result, it didn't really demonstrate whether Israel can be trusted not to use its WMDs in the future at all. All those events were telling us was that on that occasion for whatever reasons (that we probably shall never really know the truth of), Israel did not use WMDs (thank god!). But it did not add to/substract from the argument whether Israel can be or cannot be trusted.
If you feel I have "glossed over the details" you may direct me and I'll address whatever details you like. However, it doesn't at all seem as if that was Art's intention:I believe the "twisted logic" Art was referring to previously simply means that one cannot make a convincing arguement and call oneself "correct" when one gloss over the details when it suits one, while only go into the essentials when it enhances one's point of view.
I feel I have addressed the basic flaws in Art's perception of "twisted logic" of "despotic leaders". BTW, I don't see how one can take that statement seriously, unless it is some cynical demonstration of native "twisted logic" I do not understand. The true despots by all accounts are the ones which Art supports - the leadership of Iran.lol so Iran is to be attacked because it 'might' develop nuclear weapons and aren't to be trusted not to use them whilst Israel who supposedly is to be trusted plans to use nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear country. Yes this certainly sounds like the usual twisted logic employed by the current despotic leaders of Israel and the US.
Fortunately, this stopped being a popularity contest since the days of Cardinal Richelieu.Iran may have a bad image but that doesn't automatically means Israel has a good image either. It is inconclusive.