In a social media post on Wednesday, the hacking group that claimed responsibility said the Stryker hack was retaliation for a missile strike on an elementary school in Iran...
Being sickened and angered by the killing of so many schoolgirls, who happen to be Iranian, makes you "Pro-Iran"? Strange world.
While I don't think violence is always the answer, and I definitely don't support Iranian regime, I don't disagree with the statement an eye for an eye.
People and nations should expect that an attack will be met with an attack.
If a bully is hitting someone, one of the most effective ways of stopping it completely is hitting back.
Comments
In a social media post on Wednesday, the hacking group that claimed responsibility said the Stryker hack was retaliation for a missile strike on an elementary school in Iran...
Being sickened and angered by the killing of so many schoolgirls, who happen to be Iranian, makes you "Pro-Iran"? Strange world.
They're angry about civilians dying, so they want different civilians to die from lack of medical devices?
While I don't think violence is always the answer, and I definitely don't support Iranian regime, I don't disagree with the statement an eye for an eye.
People and nations should expect that an attack will be met with an attack.
If a bully is hitting someone, one of the most effective ways of stopping it completely is hitting back.
Sounds evil. Like America's foreign policy
Nuance is dead, it is all collectively distilled to a binary choice these days.
It's becoming tiresome to see nuance vanishing even here on HN.
"My team is right, your team is wrong. You must chose my team otherwise it means you're with them and so you're wrong and my enemy"
No, you can both be wrong and right.
Or, which is more likely in political discussions online, everyone is wrong.