Liz

So, I agree with everything you said, I’m just not as confident as I would like to be that Iran would stay their own hand. I agree that it’s an idiotic idea, actually using a nuke, which is part of why even North Korea hasn’t used theirs, but I’m just not that confident Iran could resist the temptation once they’ve got it. Making Israel disappear is high on their priority list, even if it’s a stupid idea.

I’m not dedicated to the preservation of Israel or anything, but part of preserving the taboo against nukes means making sure that we never actually have to retaliate after a strike. Like you said, the cat is out of the bag as far as owning nukes goes, we don’t want to end up in a situation where we have to say “okay, WWII and then that time Israel disappeared but we’re serious, no more nukes?”

I would happily give up all our nukes if everyone else agreed to do so as well.

So… Yes, but we still can’t allow them to have the ability to take out an entire city in one strike. Sucks, I know, but there are lines.

“Death to America” does not constitute a slightly different world view. They are perfectly reasonable in their pursuit of nukes, and we’re perfectly reasonable in stopping them. When someone repeatedly says “we want to drop a nuke on people” you believe them and do what it takes to stop them.

So were they going for nukes or not? Because your first comment seemed to claim they weren’t interested in nukes, but now you seem to claim they were justified in going for nukes this whole time.

(For the audience, Iran has been interested in nukes since at least the 90s, but has been prevented from getting one by lots of outside actors.)

There is no reason to be weeks away from an atomic bomb unless you’re interested in building a bomb. Tulsi was wrong about the timeline, but they were/are doing all the things a country interested in building a bomb would do.

Others have discovered that Gamboa has carried his rifle at other “non-right” protests while dressed in a similar manner. They may be a case of the shooter being jumpy.

The way statistics work, 1000 people is more than adequate for a population the size of Israel. It’s honestly overkill, if anything. The real question is “are the respondents a representative sample?” That is, is the way you chose who to question and how to question them introducing any systemic bias in your results? For this survey, if everyone lived in the West Bank, that would be a clear source of bias in the data. But if people are randomly selected by, say, phone number, then you would have to worry about more subtle biases before agreeing that the data is sound.