I truly don’t understand what you think I’m saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there’s a less conventional definition specific to military responses I’m not familiar with). Is Iran’s second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?
I’m certain there’s no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks “massive” means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.
Thanks for the discussion!
(I’m not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)
I truly don’t understand what you think I’m saying. I think that a response to a second direct attack being massive does not preclude it from not escalating (unless there’s a less conventional definition specific to military responses I’m not familiar with). Is Iran’s second direct attack on Israel not considered an escalation, and do you think that is not massive, despite rhetoric from the Ayatollah?
Or is Israel not supposed to respond to this?
There is a big difference between “proportional response” and “massive payback” and I’m not sure why you are unable to see that difference.
I’m certain there’s no quantifiable way to address the difference between those phrases, and that this is rather a matter of opinion regarding what one thinks “massive” means in terms of military/political rhetoric. I think my point was made, despite my questions going unanswered.
Thanks for the discussion!
(I’m not continuing this discussion, since the interest here seems to be quibbling over one word of rhetoric.)
Edit:
https://www.dw.com/en/what-comes-next-for-iran-after-strike-on-israel/a-70387376
Sounds commensurate to me :)