Kurush said:
So you want to murder one entire population to prevent another population from being murdered? Furthermore you want to murder an entire population not knowing ahead of time if that's even going to happen? I hope for your sake you really don't believe the things you're saying.
Yes, I would indeed advocate the "murdering" of one entire population to prevent another population from being murdered if:
1) The people in question had elected a leader whose primary goal is to cause the extinction of another group and
2) This leader has the ability, which is what is being discussed here, to carry out his DIRECT and CLEAR threats. Understand this is not about, as you say, not knowing ahead of time if it's going to happen. The elected leader of this country has made clear and regular threats to carry out exactly that.
3) The people that would be the victims of the assault ( in this case Israel ) have not said the same thing in kind about their enemy (which they have not) thereby turning it into just a pissing contest.
So, you are talking about an extreme, no question of that.
In that extreme, if the only 2 options are:
1) Allow one group (Iran) to destroy the other (Israel), after being told ahead of time it was their plan to do so and they had both the ability and desire as well as the backing of the majority of the populace (your argument that he is not the elected leader carries no weight, since there has been no move by the people to stop him).
2) Make a preemptive strike, probably killing innocents as well, to prevent a country from carrying out it's intent to destroy another nation and it's people.
So yes, it's an extreme situation, but I'd prefer to live with the consequences of #2 rather than #1. Absolutely.
To live in a neighborhood, you can't go around constantly threatening to kill all your neighbors and expect to be allowed to stay until you begin to carry out your threats.