Magnus Manske wrote:
Stopping vandals isn't attacking, it's defending against an attack.
Saying the vandals are right to attack /again/ through the infamous "attack sites" is OK since the poor vandals are the victims is ... (sorry, I'm not a native speaker of English, so I lack the words to express just how perverse that is).
I don't think AB is saying it's "OK" in the sense of morally justified, or that they are pure victims.
I think the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if they attack again when they feel victimized.
That seems reasonable to me. History is full of situations where tit-for-tat retaliations escalate conflicts, with both sides feeling that their actions are either morally right or excusable given the provocation of the other side. I don't see anything that would make us immune from that dynamic.
William