|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus
Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death.
But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device?
Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy.
I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack.
Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack.
|
On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack.
What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism?
|
On September 19 2024 01:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 00:24 Magic Powers wrote:
I think until we know the identity of the deceased, it's a bit difficult to judge the situation. That being said, the fact that thousands got injured is alarming. That has got to be mostly civilians, so I'd guess there are likely also civilians among the victims. We'll see. This quote is almost the perfect example of an extremely one sided worldview that seems completely pervasive among people with pro-Palestinian views. Honestly. Mossad targets the personal communication devices issued to Hezbollah fighters, items typically worn at all times. And this is the only reasonable interpretation on who got hit: Show nested quote +That being said, the fact that thousands got injured is alarming. That has got to be mostly civilians. Wouldn't logic dictate that if the vector off attack is a pager used for communication by enemy soldiers, typically worn or at least in close proximity, and the explosive charge is very small without any shrapnel (as seen in videos) then the amount of civilian casualties or injuries should be very low?
We already have video evidence of civilians being in the direct vicinity of some of the explosions.
We also have absolutely no confirmation that all of these devices were carried by Hezbollah.
We have no confirmation of who the individuals are who got killed or hurt. A few hundred are said to be in critical condition.
Lastly if this attack took place on Israeli soil, it would already be labeled a terrorist attack. I'm refraining from using such terminology. That's not very pro-Palestinian from me.
So I'm gonna kindly ask you to slow down with ridiculous accusations of bias.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism?
No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims.
According to the FBI:
The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.
They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting.
Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight.
|
On September 19 2024 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 02:47 Dan HH wrote:On September 19 2024 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth considering that Israel justifies putting explosives in consumer electronics by saying they were blowing up "terrorists" while Israel also identifies people like those that engaged in the pro-Palestinian actions on various campuses around the US as "terrorists".
The US government gave the head of the government calling those supporters of Palestinians "terrorists" multiple standing ovations. That same lauded government recently killed an American citizen without cause or accountability.
Mind sourcing that? I'm not asking this in an 'I don't believe you' sort of way, but I can't find it and I'm curious about the wording. No problem, here is one example:
Thanks. And yeah, that's way out of line.
|
Maybe an interesting question to ask there is, how many Israelis (military or civilians) do you reckon Hezbollah is justified in killing in response to this attack by Israel? I hope that's zero. This is the normal amount of blood, innocent or not, to want.
|
On September 19 2024 01:56 Broetchenholer wrote:
Because escalating the conflict did not make the situation better for the people now evacuated?
There were already diplomatic attempts to solve it and that did not work.
|
United States44385 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: Show nested quote +The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight.
What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in?
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in?
Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that?
What do you think the objective was here by Israel?
|
United States44385 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that?
Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets?
That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war.
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that? Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets? That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war.
No that's not what I'm saying at all.
Again, using the phrase 'terrorist attack' is not a criticism of Israel.
Its a description of the methods...
What do you think Israel's objective was?
|
On September 19 2024 03:25 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 02:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2024 02:47 Dan HH wrote:On September 19 2024 02:12 GreenHorizons wrote:
Worth considering that Israel justifies putting explosives in consumer electronics by saying they were blowing up "terrorists" while Israel also identifies people like those that engaged in the pro-Palestinian actions on various campuses around the US as "terrorists".
The US government gave the head of the government calling those supporters of Palestinians "terrorists" multiple standing ovations. That same lauded government recently killed an American citizen without cause or accountability.
Mind sourcing that? I'm not asking this in an 'I don't believe you' sort of way, but I can't find it and I'm curious about the wording. No problem, here is one example: https://twitter.com/Israel/status/1781951509070012435 Thanks. And yeah, that's way out of line.
My pleasure.
I'd argue so was having the leader of that government come to the US's Congress and make essentially the same argument to thunderous applause. I'd probably use a descriptor more condemning than "out of line" though.
|
United States44385 Posts
On September 19 2024 03:56 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:54 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that? Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets? That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war. No that's not what I'm saying at all. Again, using the phrase 'terrorist attack' is not a criticism of Israel. Its a description of the methods... What do you think Israel's objective was?
This is a guess but given the very low payload of the bombs I’d guess that it’s a combination of identification of Hezbollah members (they’re the ones missing fingers), killing some Hezbollah members, and disrupting communications within Hezbollah.
They previously abandoned smartphones because they felt that it was too risky to use them for communications. Making them afraid of pagers too has value.
To me it’s not a terrorist attack because they’re not a terrorist group with terrorist aims using terrorist means. No part of the definition is met and unless the definition is just “someone got bombed” I don’t see how it could be seen as a terrorist attack.
This is a military action by a state military at war against another military. They’re not a group threatening to blow people up at random until their demands are met, they’re targeting enemy soldiers and sending bombs to them.
If during WW1 it was possible to post armed grenades to soldiers in enemy trenches then they’d have done that too and that too would have been fine. The reason throwing grenades was the method used is not because anything else would be unfair, it was because the postal service wouldn’t have delivered a million boxes marked “FRAGILE: LIVE GRENADE. Tommy English, The Western Front, Ypres, Belgium”. You’re allowed to deliver death by airdrop, mortar, long range, or in person.
In terms of accuracy this was an extremely precise precision strike. The fact that they leaned on the internal logistics of the opposing army for last mile munitions delivery does not make it a terror attack.
|
If you are a state actor, act like a state actor. That means you are allowed to defend your self by shooting with whatever directly at military targets. It means you are not allowed to send mail bombs that could be opened in the public. This might be more "efficient" as sending a rocket into s building, but it's still a potential attack on civilians. And Israel wants to have it's cake and eat it too. They are pointing at there enemies for using terrorist attacks and asynchronous warfare against border check points, which is terroristic because it's not what normal armies would do. But then when they have an enemy that is literally just using artillery against them, they blow up hotels and embassies and pagers. But this time it's not terrorism because they define what is....
|
United Kingdom10011 Posts
On September 19 2024 04:55 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:56 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:54 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that? Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets? That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war. No that's not what I'm saying at all. Again, using the phrase 'terrorist attack' is not a criticism of Israel. Its a description of the methods... What do you think Israel's objective was? This is a guess but given the very low payload of the bombs I’d guess that it’s a combination of identification of Hezbollah members (they’re the ones missing fingers), killing some Hezbollah members, and disrupting communications within Hezbollah. They previously abandoned smartphones because they felt that it was too risky to use them for communications. Making them afraid of pagers too has value. To me it’s not a terrorist attack because they’re not a terrorist group with terrorist aims using terrorist means. No part of the definition is met and unless the definition is just “someone got bombed” I don’t see how it could be seen as a terrorist attack.
Who gets to decide what a terrorist group is?
Biden? Starmer? A combination of Western governments?
Seems like a convenient definition of terrorism to me. Its almost like it limits what we can define as terrorism to whatever a government tells us is terrorism, rather than having some objective measure. I prefer the FBI definition I used above.
They definitely used terrorist means. Having a few thousand people explode throughout the country.
Imagine a UK or US soldier goes home, sees his family and hugs his kids, and just explodes right there killing everyone, and an enemy of the US claims responsibility.
What would it be called then?
This was clearly an attack designed to spread maximum fear in Lebanon.
Either that, or as you suggest, it was a carefully designed mission to make Hezbollah buy some new, more secure pagers. In which case it was extremely successful.
Or maybe they were trying to cripple Hezbollah's army and make them incapable of fighting as effectively, in which case it was terribly conceived and a total failure.
|
I'm sure this will also totally not result in Hezbollah recruiting new members more easily. It never does, right? I'm sure this is how it works. Not because I can substantiate my belief of course, but because I want to believe it.
|
On September 19 2024 03:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that? Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets? That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war.
Last I checked, military on leave, enjoying a quiet evening with their family, or doing the groceries, or at the funeral of their fellow soldier, were not legitimate military targets...
|
This situation of Israel vs IRGC is bizarre right now. Here’s where we are at:
1: Israel can land missiles near their nuclear facilities and they’ll have no idea anything is happening until they hear an explosion
2: Israel can assassinate one of their most guarded VIPs while visiting Tehran for a presidential inauguration
3: Israel can infiltrate their entire logistics network and sabotage their equipment.
This feels like a comprehensive demonstration that Israel has already quietly won their war and that they would like to skip the deadly and devastating war. Even if Israel can destroy the entire IRGC chain of command and Khomeini himself whenever they please, it doesn’t mean Israel wouldn’t get clobbered along the way. Skipping the actual full scale war is better for everyone involved.
In any reasonable situation, Iran and Israel would essentially just go straight to the negotiating table and normalize relations across the board. This will be an interesting test of how deeply Iran actually believes all their holy war nonsense.
An inherent property of being a hegemony is that you are incentivized to keep things peaceful even if it means letting the enemy kick you in the teeth every so often. When everything staying as-is favors you by default, you are willing to make a lot of concessions and let a lot of stuff go before being willing to worsen or risk stability. It’s the same reason Russia has been allowed to slowly gobble up land and generally have the luxury of being treated as an irrational actor. But I feel like at one point Israel is just going to kill Khomeini.
And yet, this slow burn of Israel chipping away at IRGC while Khomeini desperately tries to pretend they aren’t a lesser power is clearly the best path to reduction of death. Millions of Israelis would die if IRGC decided they had nothing to lose.
I honestly don’t know what Iran’s long term plan is. I wonder if their inner circle leadership actually sees a path to destroying Israel. If they don’t see a path, it feels like they may as well just say “fuck it, this ship sailed, let’s just stop this whole thing”
|
United States44385 Posts
On September 19 2024 07:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 03:54 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:52 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:50 KwarK wrote:On September 19 2024 03:20 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 03:17 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:57 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 19 2024 02:39 BlackJack wrote:On September 19 2024 02:18 Jockmcplop wrote:
As long as we accept that making people explode, no matter who are where they are at the time, isn't a terrorist attack, we are going to have to acknowledge the same for suicide bombers no matter who or where they are... But the “who” does matter. Blowing up hezbollah fighters is different than blowing up a city bus Of course. I've already said this is preferable to flattening a whole area and starving the population to death. But was it only Hezbollah fighters holding these devices? Does Israel know the holder of every device? Its like a suicide bomber blowing up an embassy. I've always seen that referred to as a terrorist attack. Its targeted, but its a terrorist attack. What's your standard here? If one drop of innocent blood was shed then it's terrorism? No, terrorism is about intention and method, not the identity of victims. According to the FBI: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives. They could have chosen to kill soldiers in a military setting. Instead they chose a method that would make people explode in public around the civilian population. Fear and intimidation is what this was about. They haven't made a dent in Hezbollah's ability to fight. What military setting are you imagining Hezbollah being in? Well apparently they do nothing but fire rockets into Israel so wherever they are doing that? Please let me know if I’m misunderstanding because I’m not trying to straw man you. Are you saying Israel is only allowed to kill them at the location at which rockets are being fired during the firing of the rockets? That’d be an unusually strict rules of engagement for a war. Last I checked, military on leave, enjoying a quiet evening with their family, or doing the groceries, or at the funeral of their fellow soldier, were not legitimate military targets...
I’m probably the wrong person to make this argument to because I think all war is basically criminal and that people shouldn’t do it.
|
On September 19 2024 01:28 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2024 00:24 Magic Powers wrote:
I think until we know the identity of the deceased, it's a bit difficult to judge the situation. That being said, the fact that thousands got injured is alarming. That has got to be mostly civilians, so I'd guess there are likely also civilians among the victims. We'll see. This quote is almost the perfect example of an extremely one sided worldview that seems completely pervasive among people with pro-Palestinian views. Honestly. Mossad targets the personal communication devices issued to Hezbollah fighters, items typically worn at all times. And this is the only reasonable interpretation on who got hit: Show nested quote +That being said, the fact that thousands got injured is alarming. That has got to be mostly civilians. Wouldn't logic dictate that if the vector off attack is a pager used for communication by enemy soldiers, typically worn or at least in close proximity, and the explosive charge is very small without any shrapnel (as seen in videos) then the amount of civilian casualties or injuries should be very low?
It doesn't matter if amount of civilian casualties is low or not. If you're targeting select individuals and are able to hand them explosives you probably had a way to deal with them that would result in no civilian casualties.
Ends do not justify the means. Is injuring/killing 10 terrorists worth the life of an innocent 8 year old girl that became collateral just because she was at the grocery store at the time?
This is fucking insanity. I seriously don't know how people can applaud such actions or even approve of them (also what worries me is that it's all done with full knowledge and support from US intelligence).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
