1.Yes,i am amateur.And as a amateur i could say that one attack on the same target could be mistake,but few are enemy action.Unless all leaders were real idiots,but i do not belive that Izrael gave command to idiots.
As it turns out, uncovering the true causes and history of an incident involves more than applying a mangled Ian Fleming quote and calling it a day.
2.None of them when they were allies.And South Korea and Poland never tried that.
That's a goalpost shift, you didn't specify that they had to be allies at the time (and I'm sure there was a friendly fire incident or two during WW2 or Korea).
BTW, what's the cutoff point for when we can no long aid an ally? What if they shoot down a plane, or bomb some troops, or knock out a tank, are those to bad as well, or it is only ships that's past the line, and why is that unacceptable but not the other stuff?
3.incident after which USA financed part of Israel budget all that years.If killing your country sailors led to gaving money to attacker,then kidnaping should lead to giving Iran money,too.
That's a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. One of our ships was attacked by Israel, and we latter provided them with military aid, but there is no casual link between those actions. The only money that changed hands as a direct result of the incident was the Israelis paying restitution to us.
4.Those fanatics do not perform suicidal actions.They send others to do so.They have enough faith to stomach death of enemy,including cyvilians,their soldiers,iranian cyvilians...but their deaths ? NOOOOO ,we are too important to die....
I fear,that you gave them too much credits.Chomeini would gladly die in such situation,but current leaders? they are too important for islam future!
It's far from unheard of for people in leadership, even those that considered themselves of great importance, to put themselves at extreme risk or even certain death to accomplish their wider goals. It's not exactly common, but rare is not the same as "categorically impossible".