|
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. |
On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present)
It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine?
|
On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine?
Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike.
From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect.
|
Northern Ireland26225 Posts
On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect.
But the war is still ongoing, so where’s your proof that it was effective?
They’re just applying the same logic you are when you say Hezbollah are still firing rockets to poke at your logic here.
It seems to me a very strategically clever move from Israel from where I’m standing. Perhaps not the most moral, but it has pretty obvious strategic benefits.
|
On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect.
So when it suits you, you understand that value isn't in a binary state of zero or fully realized objectives. You had no good reason to ask me if Israelis can return to their homes, that's not the bar for moving the needle.
I have zero interest in defending the ethics of the pager explosions, if you had stuck to that I wouldn't have interjected. I intejected because you were driving other people mad by doubling down when the leader of Hezbollah contradicted your assertion that this didn't do significant damage to them.
Oh and Hezbollah can't stop being impressed:
One of the security sources said Hezbollah had foiled previous Israeli operations targeting devices imported from abroad by the group - from its private landline telephones to ventilation units in the group's offices.
That includes suspected breaches in the past year.
"There are several electronic issues that we were able to discover - but not the pagers," the source said. "They tricked us, hats off to the enemy."
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-handed-out-pagers-hours-before-blasts-even-after-checks-2024-09-20/
|
On September 21 2024 07:37 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect. But the war is still ongoing, so where’s your proof that it was effective? They’re just applying the same logic you are when you say Hezbollah are still firing rockets to poke at your logic here. It seems to me a very strategically clever move from Israel from where I’m standing. Perhaps not the most moral, but it has pretty obvious strategic benefits.
What the heck? The supply chain provably suffered. That is indisputable, we have footage of it. To claim that this had no effect on the frontline is completely absurd.
There is no proof of the pager attack disturbing communication to a strategically meaningful degree. None.
Most importantly, you're completely ignoring the difference in the method. A strategically impactful attack that kills one civilian and terrorizes no one is a million times better than an equally impactful attack that kills two children, four health workers and terrorizes the population.
You're hyper focusing on one specific part of the argument because there is nothing else of substance you could possibly use to argue with. It's completely nonsensical to argue in this manner.
We're moving in circles. If you bring something new to the discussion, let me know. Until then I'll worry about more important/interesting things.
|
On September 21 2024 07:38 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:On September 20 2024 19:31 Magic Powers wrote:"A former senior Israeli security official told NBC News that the devices were detonated not as part of a strategic decision but because the Israeli military was trying to act while it was still possible to use the explosives. “It became a kind of use-it-or-lose-it situation,” the former official said. Israel has not claimed responsibility for the attacks or directly commented on them." NBC has a good reputation. If they just made this up it would be a pants on fire kind of lie and that's not what they're generally known for. So I'll take this quote as true for the time being. If it is true then there was indeed no strategic purpose to the pager attack, just as logic would dictate. It'd explain why the Israel government remains silent about it even though they usually admit to their attacks very openly. So the only hope Israel has to save face is that NBC is lying for whichever reason. That implies they (Israel's administration) don't care about their reputation, they're just doing whatever the hell they want and their allies continue to be complicit. The hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have spiked with Israel hitting the South of Lebanon more than 52 times, ignoring US warnings to not escalate. I don't know if Hezbollah's attacks have ramped up or if it's just the same as before. Further escalation seems possible, but for now there are no signs of it. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-strikes-lebanon-hezbollah-revenge-device-blasts-nasrallah-rcna171946 I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind. If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan. If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect. So when it suits you, you understand that value isn't in a binary state of zero or fully realized objectives. You had no good reason to ask me if Israelis can return to their homes, that's not the bar for moving the needle. I have zero interest in defending the ethics of the pager explosions, if you had stuck to that I wouldn't have interjected. I intejected because you were driving other people mad by doubling down when the leader of Hezbollah contradicted your assertion that this didn't do significant damage to them. Oh and Hezbollah can't stop being impressed: Show nested quote +One of the security sources said Hezbollah had foiled previous Israeli operations targeting devices imported from abroad by the group - from its private landline telephones to ventilation units in the group's offices.
That includes suspected breaches in the past year.
"There are several electronic issues that we were able to discover - but not the pagers," the source said. "They tricked us, hats off to the enemy." https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hezbollah-handed-out-pagers-hours-before-blasts-even-after-checks-2024-09-20/
I'm driving YOU mad (read: speak for yourself) because you have no argument proving that the pager attack had strategic value. Your argument is so weak that all you can do is say "you don't know if it did or didn't have strategic value." Is that your accomplishment that you're proud of? Is that the kind of argument you like to have for hours and hours?
|
I don’t think it’s productive or reasonable to frame Israel vs Hezbollah in “enlightened” western legal systems.
Hezbollah’s entire daily operation against northern Israel is a “war crime”, but Hezbollah and Israel are both entirely removed from the culture/group creating the “war crime” definition.
I think many people are so used to Israel vs Hamas that they are wrongly carrying over a lot of assumptions. We all know Hezbollah is just a wing of IRGC, just like Hamas, but it occupies its own land and doesn’t have all the occupation and whatnot associated with it. Hezbollah is a grown ass group and it honestly feels stupid referring to them as something other than Iran’s military.
Iran and Israel are both “consenting” factions in their conflict. I feel like people trying to frame everything as a war crime are essentially accusing a polyamorous couple of cheating on each other. They don’t buy into our war crime dynamic. They don’t care. Neither of them are willing to let go of any of their methods for some kinda mutual rules of engagement system.
|
I think it might be a good time to let this go, and I'm Nebuchad
|
On September 21 2024 07:44 Magic Powers wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 07:37 WombaT wrote:On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 21:29 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
I don’t think that necessarily invalidates the overall operation being pursued with some strategic objective in mind.
If someone asked ‘why this day, why not that day?’ and ultimately there’s not much difference between the two, saying you didn’t pick the time and a place for a particular reason doesn’t mean there’s not an overarching reason for the overall plan.
If I’ve been planning to ask Cynthia from accounts out for months, and do it on a Friday, if a colleague asks me ‘why Friday’ and I respond ‘no particular reason’ it doesn’t mean I wasn’t planning to ask her out You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words. When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision. An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless. Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance. If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect. But the war is still ongoing, so where’s your proof that it was effective? They’re just applying the same logic you are when you say Hezbollah are still firing rockets to poke at your logic here. It seems to me a very strategically clever move from Israel from where I’m standing. Perhaps not the most moral, but it has pretty obvious strategic benefits. What the heck? The supply chain provably suffered. That is indisputable, we have footage of it. To claim that this had no effect on the frontline is completely absurd. There is no proof of the pager attack disturbing communication to a strategically meaningful degree. None. Most importantly, you're completely ignoring the difference in the method. A strategically impactful attack that kills one civilian and terrorizes no one is a million times better than an equally impactful attack that kills two children, four health workers and terrorizes the population. You're hyper focusing on one specific part of the argument because there is nothing else of substance you could possibly use to argue with. It's completely nonsensical to argue in this manner. We're moving in circles. If you bring something new to the discussion, let me know. Until then I'll worry about more important/interesting things.
Something tells me that if Ukraine could with the push of a button disable 1% of Russia's army (or vice-versa) and make them have to rethink their communication you would see some value in how that would move odds in their favor.
On September 21 2024 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it might be a good time to let this go, and I'm Nebuchad
Hey, we have some downtime before the next 5000 word response PremoBeats is probably typing at you right now
|
Yeah this strike is already paying off, it seams. Israel is claiming that the entire "senior command of Hezbollah [was] ‘eliminated’" in the strike tonight in Beirut. (It's too early to tell for sure but I have my fingers crossed). Apparently they had to meet in person because Israel had destroyed their communications system, according to this NBC commentator.
According to France24, that Hizbollah commander Aqil that they targeted had to seek healthcare for his injuries from the pager bomb shortly before the strike too. Probably not ideal when you have a 7 million dollar bounty on your head from the US government.
|
That seems like a good sign, if they make a claim like this they're less likely to invade Lebanon. At least that's how it reads to me I don't know.
|
Yeah, but it depends on what Hizbollah does. This is Israel's "escalate to deescalate" strategy. They show hizbollah how completely they dominate them so they are forced to back down before this comes to an all out war.
|
On September 21 2024 08:33 Elroi wrote:
Yeah, but it depends on what Hizbollah does. This is Israel's "escalate to deescalate" strategy. They show hizbollah how completely they dominate them so they are forced to back down before this comes to an all out war.
Yeah that's the rhetoric they'd use but as you know Israel can decide to invade or not to invade regardless of what Hezbollah does in retaliation, it has agency. I may be way off on this but if they planned to go to war I feel like the line in the press would be a little different. It seems weird to declare that you've eliminated all the senior command of an organization right before you're "forced to invade another country" because of this organization.
|
On September 21 2024 08:43 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 08:33 Elroi wrote:
Yeah, but it depends on what Hizbollah does. This is Israel's "escalate to deescalate" strategy. They show hizbollah how completely they dominate them so they are forced to back down before this comes to an all out war. Yeah that's the rhetoric they'd use but as you know Israel can decide to invade or not to invade regardless of what Hezbollah does in retaliation, it has agency. I may be way off on this but if they planned to go to war I feel like the line in the press would be a little different. It seems weird to declare that you've eliminated all the senior command of an organization right before you're "forced to invade another country" because of this organization.
There's some internal kerfuffle over this. Reports are that the Israeli general in charge of the northern front is lobbying to enter Lebanon to create a buffer zone, while Gallant is more cautious and opposed to the idea. There were also reports of a plot to fire and replace Gallant, but this is an unpopular move and might be scrapped.
I don't think the missiles in the north will stop just because some senior commanders were killed, since fighting Israel is Hezbollah's whole raison d'etre. The debate on Israel's part isn't really about whether they have good reason to do it, but on whether they have the manpower for both fronts without overextending.
|
It all depends on the 60-70000 displaced Israelis. If they can return to their homes there won’t be a war with Hezbollah.
|
To my knowledge, Iran doesn’t have a more “practical” reason for war with Israel, right? Russia vs USA and basically every single other modern conflict comes down to money and power. Freedom this, capitalism that blah blah it’s always just a super practical consideration despite what a country says.
For Iran, is it just the “justice” side of things? Stolen land and whatnot aside, is it like Saudi Arabia or whatever where there’s some natural resource component?
Right now it’s looking like Iran kinda quietly lost the war before they realized they were close to losing. Assassination in Tehran, warning missiles near nuclear facilities, Israel proving they have their roots up the asshole of every single aspect of Hezbollah, it feels like victory is literally 0% chance at this point for Iran.
In short my question is: is this just an ethics thing for them? Israel is clearly inching closer and closer to killing Khomeini and it seems like Iran knows it. Is it possible they actually just give up? Does their economy crash or something if they do? From what I can tell this isn’t like the Cold War or something where only 1 can avoid collapse. It seems like they could in theory have totally normalized relations and nothing would be bad for either side.
|
United States43505 Posts
Persia and Arabia have been competing for leadership of Islam since day 1. Hating Israel is a big part of Iran’s claim of leadership. If Iran wasn’t a theocracy it wouldn’t give a shit, it has no conflicting interests with Israel. It’s just a pet project of the Ayatollahs.
|
On September 21 2024 01:55 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 01:37 PremoBeats wrote:
I don't even know what I should do with your reply. You highlight some words, attribute your own meaning and motif and hand wave away my overall conclusion (Demilitarization, de-radicalization... Blabla, you know it by now, I hope).
You make it seem like me pointing out that Palestinians historically stirring up trouble in other countries and these countries now having reasons to not let Palestinians in out of safety concerns, is somehow bad. I didn't "make it seem" like anything, I very clearly just said that your claim that I'm misrepresenting you is wrong, as you're saying those things. There was no other content in the post. Since you don't know what you should do with my answer, I can tell you: you should stop using false claims of misrepresentation in the future and focus on the issues. Of course there are additional problems with that, as this speaks to mindset: a person who will immediately claim to be misrepresented when their actual words are written back to them doesn't really care about what they're saying, and that brings their honesty into question. But of course it's been clear since your first few posts that you aren't engaging in good faith so that's not really new information.
The claim that you misrepresent what I write, is not wrong. Let's look at your "evidence":
"stir up trouble": What is the issue with this historical observation like I pointed out in my last reply? Or do you deny that there were major issues in the countries where the Palestinians found refugee in and what I described earlier?
"Problem people": This is also simply a factual observation. No idea what you try to prove with this in regards to my persona. I even wrote in the same sentence: "It does not necessarily follow that Palestine needs to be ethnically cleansed from Israel’s POV simply because they have issues with the Palestinians." You either have to live in the non-sequitur or accept that Palestinians don't necessarily have to be ethnically cleansed by Israel.
"deal with them": Also a simple fact. Israel has to deal with the issues surrounding Palestine. They also have to deal with Orthodox Jews. Both are issues, but from this fact, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc do not follow. Thus I said in my last post that I have no clue what to do with this post. It is completely senseless.
And I know that you will ignore most of the issues I present here without addressing them, as you know that you have no leg to stand on. Then you will probably focus on some other irrelevant BS where I have to come back to and explain EVERYTHING because otherwise it is proof of how bad of a person I am.
So you do deny that Israel has to deal with Palestine in one way or another, even when they don't attack back (then they have to fend off rockets, have security check points, etc.)?
"Scary people": While I don't think all Palestinians are "scary people", yes, there are security concerns in regards to the Palestinian refugees for the surrounding countries. Do you deny that?
And to finish this nonsense... you used "evil" without me using the word. Congratulations.
Here are some other things you put in my mouth which I never said/where you misrepresented what I wrote and you never bothered to address after it after me pointing it out.
- Where did I say that Israel is “wanting Palestinians out”?
- “You're continuously saying that Israel isn't killing enough people for you to be bothered. “
Quote this. Where did I say this? If I did so continuously, it should be easy. I only said that casualties are a given in any war and that Israel’s numbers are very good in comparison.
- You still did not word out what you think “my conclusion” is.
To address Dan HH's criticism: I know that my style of discussing is annoying to other readers, but the issue is that it seems like people here have been cultivated to throw out notions and arguments without having to back them up. I won't let people off the hook so easily.
The same is true with everyone who started to argue with me so far. Once I ask for actual numbers and explanations how these numbers could possibly end up in the notion that was put forward, people simply stop replying.
Because there is no explanation how genocide, forced famine or indiscriminate killings are possible with the actual numbers.
So I am quoting this right back to you from your last reply to me: "focus on the issues."
On September 21 2024 08:11 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 07:44 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 07:37 WombaT wrote:On September 21 2024 06:47 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:30 Dan HH wrote:On September 21 2024 06:25 Magic Powers wrote:On September 21 2024 06:04 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 22:29 Magic Powers wrote:On September 20 2024 22:24 Dan HH wrote:On September 20 2024 21:47 Magic Powers wrote:
[quote]
You're free to interpret his words whichever way you want, but I'm taking him at his precise words.
When Ukraine blew up the Crimean bridge, that was a strategic decision. It would be a strategic decision now, a year ago, at the beginning of the war, at any given point since the beginning of the war it would be considered a strategic decision. There's no point in time when it stops being a strategic decision.
An attack that is not strategic is just retaliation. It has no point unless the point can be proven. There is no provable point to the pager attack, I've explained sufficiently why it was pointless.
Especially coupled with Israel's silence about the attack, I won't give them the benefit of the doubt on this question. Not a chance, absolutely not a chance.
If your point is true, then that person has terrible communication skills. That'd be the conclusion. Not that my interpretation is wrong. You have strange way of parsing information. The question was whether this was step 1 of a larger strategy (i.e. ground forces entering Lebanon) or not. This SME's opinion is that it was not part of a larger operation, but a standalone one rushed by the ticking clock. Were he wrong and Israel entered Lebanon tomorrow, that wouldn't mean he is lying or NBC is lying, it's an opinion. Were that to happen, it also wouldn't make the pager explosions more or less defensible. The implication of your post before this one is that Israel would have to immediately invade to "save face" or improve their reputation, which is peak Magic-posting. Strategic value is when something is a piece to a greater puzzle and doesn't just serve its own purpose. The purpose of this attack is non-strategic, which means there's no puzzle, which means it only served its own purpose. Which means there is no breakdown of communications, because that would count as strategic value. Is that too complicated to understand? Have you played Starcraft before? Is this a forum for strategy players or have I been mistaken about this assumption? Your attack on me as a person completely fails because all you're doing is exposing your ignorance of what counts as a strategy or as a piece to a strategy. Try less personal attacks in the future, it might help you formulate better arguments. There is no strategy behind the pager attack, period. It was a one-off and it will be solved and activities will resume as normal. Hezbollah has not stopped attacking Israel. There was no point in the attack and if you claim otherwise you're the one who has to come up with objective evidence to disprove that. Israel burrowed some banelings. Hezbollah walked over them. Israel detonated them. Hezbollah typed "damn, you got me good" but didn't leave the game. You're here telling us any move that doesn't instawin you the game or isn't part of an all-in is useless and Hezbollah's own admission of the damage it has done to them is wrong. This exchange would have ended when RvB quoted Nasrallah if your ego didn't have the mass of Sagittarius A. You're still not providing objective evidence. Can Israelis return to their homes? If you can't find sources, here's a simple overview of attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Israel–Hezbollah_conflict_(27_July_2024_–_present) It's a non-sequitur. You said blowing up the Kerch bridge had value, did it return Crimea to Ukraine? Blowing up that bridge had substantial and concrete strategic value. For at least several months it hurt Russia's capability to resupply the front. I don't know how you're not aware of that fact. Objectively speaking it was a strategically very successful strike. From an ethical angle, it was not an attack with the side effect of terrorizing the population. It was a military strike that had minimal casualties and no terrorizing effect. But the war is still ongoing, so where’s your proof that it was effective? They’re just applying the same logic you are when you say Hezbollah are still firing rockets to poke at your logic here. It seems to me a very strategically clever move from Israel from where I’m standing. Perhaps not the most moral, but it has pretty obvious strategic benefits. What the heck? The supply chain provably suffered. That is indisputable, we have footage of it. To claim that this had no effect on the frontline is completely absurd. There is no proof of the pager attack disturbing communication to a strategically meaningful degree. None. Most importantly, you're completely ignoring the difference in the method. A strategically impactful attack that kills one civilian and terrorizes no one is a million times better than an equally impactful attack that kills two children, four health workers and terrorizes the population. You're hyper focusing on one specific part of the argument because there is nothing else of substance you could possibly use to argue with. It's completely nonsensical to argue in this manner. We're moving in circles. If you bring something new to the discussion, let me know. Until then I'll worry about more important/interesting things. Something tells me that if Ukraine could with the push of a button disable 1% of Russia's army (or vice-versa) and make them have to rethink their communication you would see some value in how that would move odds in their favor. Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 07:51 Nebuchad wrote:
I think it might be a good time to let this go, and I'm Nebuchad Hey, we have some downtime before the next 5000 word response PremoBeats is probably typing at you right now
It is the same boring repetition all over again with Nebuchad. He looks at hundreds of paragraphs and picks the ones that he thinks paint me as some Islamophobic Palestine/Muslim hater, ignoring the actual interesting parts of the discussion, which coincidentally don't support his base-line argument of indiscriminate killings of Palestinians.
Thus, he resorts to attributing motifs, uses fallacies as well as straight up quotes that do not reflect what he put in my mouth.
Sorry to bother you and occupy so much space... but in my opinion, it needs to be made visible how people like him try to deny the facts and put others in a corner to silence them or divert the subject.
|
While you are arguing how non terroristic and efficient this attack was, the foreign minister of Lebanon, the country at war with Hisbollah, has condemned the attack as terroristic and brutally barbaric at the UN. It's almost like, if you kill and maim citizens of Lebanon, that is "at war with Hizbollah", you act as a terrorist against Lebanon.
https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/israel-libanon-pager-explosionen-un-sicherheitsrat-100.html
Too lazy to find it in english. Yes, we prefer if israel is just exploding pagers and not residential blocks, that does not mean we should applaud them for their restraint. If a state actor over and over ignores the guidelines we have set up to protect civilian life, we should care. And not start a weird discussion if that line of attack was now better or worse. If you look at the timeline of the conflict Hezbollah and other militant forces in Lebanon started with their small scale attacks immediately after 7th of October. They are bastards. Shooting back at those guys is fine. Doing a mistake here and there, for example hitting journalists, is probably a mistake. You fire back at a very empty hilly area, not a lot of collateral there. Do your diligence, act as a defending army, shoot at military targets and the world is on your side. They could have done that until now. But they also had to strike embassies, bomb hotels and bow up pagers in Beirut grocery stores... None of that has brought more peace to the region.
On September 21 2024 07:50 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think it’s productive or reasonable to frame Israel vs Hezbollah in “enlightened” western legal systems.
Hezbollah’s entire daily operation against northern Israel is a “war crime”, but Hezbollah and Israel are both entirely removed from the culture/group creating the “war crime” definition.
I think many people are so used to Israel vs Hamas that they are wrongly carrying over a lot of assumptions. We all know Hezbollah is just a wing of IRGC, just like Hamas, but it occupies its own land and doesn’t have all the occupation and whatnot associated with it. Hezbollah is a grown ass group and it honestly feels stupid referring to them as something other than Iran’s military.
Iran and Israel are both “consenting” factions in their conflict. I feel like people trying to frame everything as a war crime are essentially accusing a polyamorous couple of cheating on each other. They don’t buy into our war crime dynamic. They don’t care. Neither of them are willing to let go of any of their methods for some kinda mutual rules of engagement system.
Dude, war crimes are not to referee participants, they are setup to protect innocents. And to them, they are very relevant! The civilian casualties from the conflict on both sides would really like it if those two state sponsored terrorist groups would care about war crimes. And what do you mean, Hezbollah and Israel are removes from the culture/group creating the "war crime" definition? they don't care cause they are semitic?
|
On September 21 2024 17:42 Broetchenholer wrote:While you are arguing how non terroristic and efficient this attack was, the foreign minister of Lebanon, the country at war with Hisbollah, has condemned the attack as terroristic and brutally barbaric at the UN. It's almost like, if you kill and maim citizens of Lebanon, that is "at war with Hizbollah", you act as a terrorist against Lebanon. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/asien/israel-libanon-pager-explosionen-un-sicherheitsrat-100.htmlToo lazy to find it in english. Yes, we prefer if israel is just exploding pagers and not residential blocks, that does not mean we should applaud them for their restraint. If a state actor over and over ignores the guidelines we have set up to protect civilian life, we should care. And not start a weird discussion if that line of attack was now better or worse. If you look at the timeline of the conflict Hezbollah and other militant forces in Lebanon started with their small scale attacks immediately after 7th of October. They are bastards. Shooting back at those guys is fine. Doing a mistake here and there, for example hitting journalists, is probably a mistake. You fire back at a very empty hilly area, not a lot of collateral there. Do your diligence, act as a defending army, shoot at military targets and the world is on your side. They could have done that until now. But they also had to strike embassies, bomb hotels and bow up pagers in Beirut grocery stores... None of that has brought more peace to the region. Show nested quote +On September 21 2024 07:50 Mohdoo wrote:
I don’t think it’s productive or reasonable to frame Israel vs Hezbollah in “enlightened” western legal systems.
Hezbollah’s entire daily operation against northern Israel is a “war crime”, but Hezbollah and Israel are both entirely removed from the culture/group creating the “war crime” definition.
I think many people are so used to Israel vs Hamas that they are wrongly carrying over a lot of assumptions. We all know Hezbollah is just a wing of IRGC, just like Hamas, but it occupies its own land and doesn’t have all the occupation and whatnot associated with it. Hezbollah is a grown ass group and it honestly feels stupid referring to them as something other than Iran’s military.
Iran and Israel are both “consenting” factions in their conflict. I feel like people trying to frame everything as a war crime are essentially accusing a polyamorous couple of cheating on each other. They don’t buy into our war crime dynamic. They don’t care. Neither of them are willing to let go of any of their methods for some kinda mutual rules of engagement system. Dude, war crimes are not to referee participants, they are setup to protect innocents. And to them, they are very relevant! The civilian casualties from the conflict on both sides would really like it if those two state sponsored terrorist groups would care about war crimes. And what do you mean, Hezbollah and Israel are removes from the culture/group creating the "war crime" definition? they don't care cause they are semitic?
Lebanon as a country and neither its government are at war with Hezbollah, which is both a political party and an armed militia operating in Lebanon. The March 8 alliance of which Hezbollah is a part, won 62 of the 128 seats in the last election and Hezbollah and its close ally Amal retained all 27 Shia-designated seats.
About the overall attacks:
As of 19th September, 37 have died, including 12 civilians which is a casualty rate of 1:0.48.
Hassan Nasrallah said that there were 4k pager holders and all of them were Hezbollah members, while criticizing that the explosions also occurred in civilian areas.
From my estimation, although the death casualty rate is very good, too many civilians that were not killed, got caught in them. The non-controlled aspect of that attack makes it immoral in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
