retaliation in revenge

zoweezowee

New Member
Chinese - China
That makes it harder to distinguish and reject the legality of Iranian justifications for retaliation in revenge.

I am just thinking that it implies the same meaning if I omit either one of retaliation and revenge.
So it would be:
Iranian justifications for retaliation in revenge = Iranian justifications for retaliation = Iranian justifications for revenge
Am I right ?
Thanks a lot!
 
  • zoweezowee

    New Member
    Chinese - China
    Please tell us the source of your sentence, please.
    A dangerous precedent
    It is short-sighted to think that “two tests” will define whether the killing of Qassem Suleimani was a success: “its effect on deterrence and on Iran’s regional power” (“Masterstroke or madness?”, January 11th). The killing failed a more important test. It breached a settled rule of international law prohibiting the use of force in international relations, except in response to an actual attack or to an imminent threat. Mike Pompeo, America’s secretary of state, all but admitted that no such attack was foreseen when he claimed, irreconcilably, that an attack was imminent, but we simply didn’t know where or when.
    That makes it harder to distinguish and reject the legality of Iranian justifications for retaliation in revenge. <-----Excess quote removed by moderator (Florentia52)----->

    This is a letter from the magazine The Economists.
     
    Last edited by a moderator:
    < Previous | Next >
    Top