Iran starts Bitcoin-backed ship insurance for Hormuz strait

> The right of innocent passage has long applied to straits.

Not even for one hundred years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_...

In any case, the cost will be passed on to the markets. Which country claims the vessel doesn't matter much.

> What is the definition of a terrorist and why does the destruction and genocide in Gaza not fall under that term?

There is certainly no genocide in Gaza, the destruction is clearly the end result of a war started by Hamas. In fact Hamas did have genocidal intent in their attacks on Oct 7th but did not have the military capability to carry out that intent. Israel on the other hand clearly has that military capability but not the intent.

> Cite your sources when you define terrorism, please.

There is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. Obviously that cause problems. [0]

> Also, are you just patently unaware? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Israel

It's a vague expression without a clear definition.

[0] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-49238-9_...

"There is certainly no genocide in Gaza" -- you are directly contradicting a formal UN Commission of Inquiry finding from September 2025. This is not an opinion piece or a fringe report. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory concluded after a two-year investigation that Israel committed four of the five genocidal acts defined under the 1948 Genocide Convention, and that genocidal intent was established through direct statements from Israeli leadership including the Prime Minister, President, and Defence Minister. Your claim that Israel lacks genocidal intent is directly contradicted by the Commission's finding that genocidal intent was "the only reasonable inference" from both the statements of Israeli leadership and the pattern of conduct of Israeli forces. [0]

You said there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism. So let me use the official definition from the United States government.

The US State Department definition under 22 USC 2656f(d) defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents." [1]

The US domestic terrorism statute under 18 USC 2331(5) defines it as activities that "appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." [2]

You say there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, then said nothing to explain how you applied the term with such confidence to the Iranian government in your original post. By your own admission, you invoked a contested label selectively against one state while exempting another. That is a political preference dressed up as a principled argument, not anything of rigorous analysis.

Now apply that to Gaza. The same UN Commission found that Israel deliberately targeted civilians, deliberately destroyed healthcare and education infrastructure, imposed starvation conditions, and directly targeted children. That is premeditated. It is politically motivated. It is violence against noncombatants. By the U.S. government's definition, it fits.

On Greater Israel, calling it "vague" does not explain away the fact that sitting members of the current Israeli government have explicitly stated their intent to annex Palestinian territory.

Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said at a Jerusalem Day rally four days ago: "The time has come to finally erase the lines that separate Areas A, B, and C. The entire Land of Israel is ours." He also declared the war "must end with the expansion of the borders of the State of Israel" and called on Netanyahu to order the IDF to prepare for "full occupation of the Gaza Strip" and establish Israeli settlements there. [3]

National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir stated from the Temple Mount: "Conquer all of Gaza, declare sovereignty over the entire Strip, eliminate every Hamas member, and encourage voluntary emigration. This is the only way." [4]

These are not fringe backbenchers. These are cabinet ministers in the current Israeli government. This is declared policy, not a vague expression.

You still have not answered why Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons.

[0] https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/09/israel-has-c... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/22/2656f [2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11... [3] https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-896309 [4] https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/on-temple-mount...

> Nobody credible said or believed Iran was making nuclear weapons.

Tell that to Iran's former parliamentary deputy speaker who said 'When we began our nuclear activity, our goal was indeed to build a bomb. There is no need to beat around the bush.'[1]

[1] https://www.dailymail.com/sciencetech/article-15732615/iran-...

I simply stated "You'd think these Epstein file guys would be on better terms with a country whose religious and political leaders sanctify that kind of behavior, not going to war with them.". Seems like a reasonable comment. They are all awful people.

Paul Graham is saying you should not call people you are in a discussion with names. If I called OP names your link would fit. Calling out a horrific regime that murders their people and rents out children under the sanction of their religious leaders is not that.

Calling the person you are in a discussion with names = bad. Call the subject of the discussion bad, when they legitimately are horrific, is normal discussion. Trump is awful. The Islamic Republic is awful. Both of those are normal and acceptable things to state in a discussion. You DeadFred are a , not normal or acceptable.

However Hacker New's ACTUAL guidelines state reguarding comments "Converse curiously; don't cross-examine." which your post seems to explicitly violate. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html