|
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. |
Northern Ireland25159 Posts
On October 30 2024 23:27 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:On October 30 2024 21:15 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 11:23 Salazarz wrote:On October 30 2024 05:54 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 05:47 Salazarz wrote:
In what way is having UN observers there harmful to, uh, anyone at all? The discussion begun with the 7 being injured by a rocket. And previously 4, I think, were injured by the IDF. We are talking about the observers being harmed. Maybe IDF could simply, I don't know, not shoot at them? That would stop a third of them. On October 30 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:On October 30 2024 16:54 Elroi wrote:
Weren't they there specifically to demilitarize the zone south of the Litani river? That's what I've heard. It looks more to me like they protect hizbollah's military infrastructure by body blocking Israel. Interesting conspiracy theor-- I mean plot by Western governments, tell us more about it. He wrote it as an opinion, see the bolded words. Why does it matter whether he presented it as a fact or an opinion? Do you think there is a relevant difference between "the earth is flat" and "I think the earth is flat"? And should people voicing the latter not be questioned? You pick remarkable hills to die on. You may want to look up hill to die on, because you are using it wrong. There is an obvious difference, one believes it to be fact, the other says it is his opinion. At no point did I say opinions should not be questioned. But there is clearly a different way of doing it in the different situations. I also think the shit one liners need to go away, but I'm alone on that one.
If someone said ‘I think the Dems stole the last election’ would you go ‘hey it’s not so bad it’s just an opinion, they’re not stating it as fact’
UNIFIL never had a remit to enforce and demilitarise the zones under their remit. Other things, including observation, are in their established remit
One of the reasons they’ve been there for 40+ years is precisely because Hezbollah haven’t been defanged
|
On October 31 2024 01:12 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2024 23:27 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 22:46 Acrofales wrote:On October 30 2024 21:15 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 11:23 Salazarz wrote:On October 30 2024 05:54 Billyboy wrote:On October 30 2024 05:47 Salazarz wrote:
In what way is having UN observers there harmful to, uh, anyone at all? The discussion begun with the 7 being injured by a rocket. And previously 4, I think, were injured by the IDF. We are talking about the observers being harmed. Maybe IDF could simply, I don't know, not shoot at them? That would stop a third of them. On October 30 2024 21:02 Magic Powers wrote:On October 30 2024 16:54 Elroi wrote:
Weren't they there specifically to demilitarize the zone south of the Litani river? That's what I've heard. It looks more to me like they protect hizbollah's military infrastructure by body blocking Israel. Interesting conspiracy theor-- I mean plot by Western governments, tell us more about it. He wrote it as an opinion, see the bolded words. Why does it matter whether he presented it as a fact or an opinion? Do you think there is a relevant difference between "the earth is flat" and "I think the earth is flat"? And should people voicing the latter not be questioned? You pick remarkable hills to die on. You may want to look up hill to die on, because you are using it wrong. There is an obvious difference, one believes it to be fact, the other says it is his opinion. At no point did I say opinions should not be questioned. But there is clearly a different way of doing it in the different situations. I also think the shit one liners need to go away, but I'm alone on that one. If someone said ‘I think the Dems stole the last election’ would you go ‘hey it’s not so bad it’s just an opinion, they’re not stating it as fact’ UNIFIL never had a remit to enforce and demilitarise the zones under their remit. Other things, including observation, are in their established remit One of the reasons they’ve been there for 40+ years is precisely because Hezbollah haven’t been defanged
I would ask them why they thought that instead of insulting them. The person would have shown they understand its an opinion and you can have a discussion about that. A person who believes their assumptions are facts it is pointless to discuss anything with them.
I'm not sure I understand the rest of your post.
The resolution calls for:[16]
Full cessation of hostilities (OP1)
Israel to withdraw all of its forces from Lebanon in parallel with Lebanese and UNIFIL soldiers deploying throughout the South (OP2)
A long-term solution based on (OP8)
Disarmament of all armed groups in Lebanon (implying Hezbollah)
No armed forces other than UNIFIL and Lebanese (implying Hezbollah and Israeli forces) will be south of the Litani River
No foreign forces in Lebanon without the consent of its government
Provision to the United Nations of all maps of land mines in Lebanon in Israel's possession
The Resolution at the same time also emphasizes:[16]
The importance of full control of Lebanon by the government of Lebanon (OP3)
The need to address urgently the unconditional release of the abducted Israeli soldiers, that have given rise to the current crisis.
The resolution also reiterates the Security Council's strong support for
Full respect for the Blue Line (OP 4)
The territorial integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon within its internationally recognized borders (OP 5)
All parties agreed (UN, Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah). I'm not sure if it is UNFIL job to enforce it, but Lebanon's army does not have the power too. Neither Hezbollah or the IDF are going to enforce it, because that is just the continuation of the war. I mean in the end I guess Israel is trying to enforce it, but that is not what the UN intended or anyone wants.
As I said earlier, the UN just continues to make this situation worse and worse.
|
Wait, what? I thought this meant that their purpose was to demilitarize the zone between the border and the Litani river:
Assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.
Tell me if I'm misreading this somehow.
|
On October 31 2024 01:44 Elroi wrote:Wait, what? I thought this meant that their purpose was to demilitarize the zone between the border and the Litani river: Show nested quote +Assist the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) in taking steps towards the establishment between the Blue Line and the Litani river of an area free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons other than those of the Government of Lebanon and of UNIFIL deployed in this area.
Tell me if I'm misreading this somehow.
Assist leaves a lot of wiggle room.
|
IDF is now doing the UN's job and UN is pissed about it, soooo much that they claim UN-Soldiers were hurt.. by smoke screens.
|
Sounds like their adding more militarization for the demilitarized zone. Also, considering that Israel and the US have used "It's just a smoke screen" to excuse the use of white phosphorous in the past, discounting the potential bad effects of a smokescreen without further information feels like ragging on the lady who had her skin melted because McDonald's made their coffee too hot.
|
All I read:
IDF deployed smokescreen to allow the med-evac of wounded soldiers, and UN soldiers were "hurt" by inhaling smoke 100 yards away.
Which was condensed to "UN Personal attacked by IDF".
Thats just bad faith.
|
With Israel preventing any and all independent investigations into their crimes, I will never believe them. They've lied far too much and caused far too much harm with their lies. The UN's version of events always has much greater credibility. This is the only correct way to approach the subject. Only people who've been living under a rock will disagree.
|
I have read the UN claim. It was smoke screen, deployed in proximity to the base.
Now what?
|
On October 31 2024 21:31 KT_Elwood wrote:
I have read the UN claim. It was smoke screen, deployed in proximity to the base.
Now what?
Inhaling white phosphorus is pretty fucking horrible. So if the smoke screen was a white phosphorus smoke screen, I don't think you can dismiss this as casually as you think you can.
|
Remember: always believe victims, but not if they're victims of Israel.
|
Here's the finul rapport btw :
https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4064887?ln=en&v=pdf
On the morning of 13 October 2024, peacekeeping troops at the UNIFIL
Ramiyah post observed three Israeli troop detachments crossing the Blue Line
into Lebanon. At approximately 0430 hours, while peacekeeping troops were in
shelters, two Israeli army Merkava tanks destroyed the post’s main gate and
forcibly entered it. They made several requests for the post’s lights to be turned
off. The tanks left after about 45 minutes, following a protest from UNIFIL. At
approximately 0640 hours, peacekeeping troops at the same location reported
several bursts of gunfire some 100 m to the north, producing heavy smoke.
Although they were wearing protective masks, 15 peacekeeping troops suffered
ill effects, including skin irritation and stomach problems, as the smoke reached
the base. On that same day, Israeli army soldiers halted a major UNIFIL
logistical convoy near Mays al-Jabal and blocked it from proceeding.
• On 11 October 2024, there were two explosions near an observation tower at the
UNIFIL headquarters in Naqurah, injuring two peacekeeping troops. This came
after an observation tower at the UNIFIL Naqurah headquarters was hit directly
on 10 October 2024 when it was deliberately fired on by an Israeli army
Merkava tank, injuring two peacekeeping troops.
Prior to that, the Israeli army had fired at United Nations position 31 -1 in
Labbunah, hitting the entrance to the shelter where peacekeeping troops had
been sheltering, and damaging vehicles and the communications system. On
9 October 2024, the Israeli army deliberately fired at surveillance cameras in
the vicinity of the post, disabling them. It also fired deliberately at United
Nations post 32-1A in Ra’s al-Naqurah.
• On 2 October 2024, the Israeli army infiltrated from behind UNIFIL posts near
the mission’s post 52-6 to engage in hostile military activities inside Lebanese
territory southeast of Marun al-Ra’s. That put the lives of United Nations
peacekeeping troops at risk as they went about their mandated tasks .
Those "smoke screen" hurt 15 soldiers wearing protective mask with skin irritation and stomachs problem. It's not surprising that so much pro israeli posters spend all their energy distording facts but the propaganda is getting more and more blatant and dumb, how can a reasonnable mind eat this ? And that's why Israël is a danger not only to the palestinians but our societies as it is, within the trend of the maga movement, one of the factor which strips us of our rationality.
Regardless, the tanks storming to the finul base place, the bulldozer destroying their tower and the indonesians soldiers getting shot at is definetly a direct targeting.
And on a bigger picture, israel is the country which wipes its ass the most with un resolutions like it's not even close while by far the most protected by the security council, so yeah, UN is useless as it has no enforcing power, the palestinian can testify of this fact sadly.
|
Well at least you and Israel agree on something, the usefulness of the UN!
Lots of the Israeli generals are starting to signal that they have accomplished what they could in Gaza and nearing it with Hezbollah. The question is if Netanyahu and Iran are ready to stop. It is now looking like Iran will strike back after Israel's retaliation and I don't see Israel not responding to another Iran attack. Will it lead to an all out war between Iran and Israel? Starting to look that way.
|
On November 01 2024 23:03 Billyboy wrote:
Well at least you and Israel agree on something, the usefulness of the UN!
Lots of the Israeli generals are starting to signal that they have accomplished what they could in Gaza and nearing it with Hezbollah. The question is if Netanyahu and Iran are ready to stop. It is now looking like Iran will strike back after Israel's retaliation and I don't see Israel not responding to another Iran attack. Will it lead to an all out war between Iran and Israel? Starting to look that way.
Unlikely tbh.
It's almost 1000km between the two closest points of Israel/Iran.
You have to go through Iraq and Jordan/Syria to get between the two countries.
Iran could do another bunch of ballistic missiles, but ballistic missiles are incredibly expensive, slow to manufacture, and fundamentally spend a huge amount of payload mass just getting up to speed.
Neither country really has the ability to wage expeditionary war far outside their borders.
What Iran's done to date is about as much as you can expect as far as "war" between the two.
|
On November 02 2024 01:16 Lmui wrote:Show nested quote +On November 01 2024 23:03 Billyboy wrote:
Well at least you and Israel agree on something, the usefulness of the UN!
Lots of the Israeli generals are starting to signal that they have accomplished what they could in Gaza and nearing it with Hezbollah. The question is if Netanyahu and Iran are ready to stop. It is now looking like Iran will strike back after Israel's retaliation and I don't see Israel not responding to another Iran attack. Will it lead to an all out war between Iran and Israel? Starting to look that way. Unlikely tbh. It's almost 1000km between the two closest points of Israel/Iran. You have to go through Iraq and Jordan/Syria to get between the two countries. Iran could do another bunch of ballistic missiles, but ballistic missiles are incredibly expensive, slow to manufacture, and fundamentally spend a huge amount of payload mass just getting up to speed. Neither country really has the ability to wage expeditionary war far outside their borders. What Iran's done to date is about as much as you can expect as far as "war" between the two.
Some thing to think about, I mean Iran and Israel are in a hot war right now basically, they are both just pretending they are not so they do not put themselves at risk as much I guess? So it could balloon to include Syria very easily, since Assad needs Iran to stay in power.
But I get your point it is not like Israel has the tanks and so on to make that kind of push and Iran does not have what it takes or all the current Israelis would be dead like their opponents in Syria.
I guess it just feels on a knives edge because I can see many reasons why a ceasefire and stopping right now would make sense. But I can also see why continuing and it growing would make sense. The pessimistic side of me says that most of the reasons to stop are humanitarian and Iran cares about no people and Israel only cares about those within their borders.
|
I'd call it a boiling over of existing tensions. Fundamentally, neither side has anything close to the ability to sustain a fighting force of 10,000s that far outside the country. Yeah Iran can lob some missiles and Israel can drop some bombs, but that's functionally like people taking potshots at each other from neighbouring apartments with bb guns. Yeah you might hurt/kill some people, but you can't really do enough damage to break the apartment.
|
It is a dangerous game they are playing with super high risks and tons of people having their lives ended and ruined. Best case scenario is the long term effect is both countries having new leadership that have totally different values.
|
I just don't see Israel leaving Iran's nuclear program unharmed. It also seems like a good time to strike against it now that Iran's proxies are in shambles and are not posing a threat to Israel. But what do I know?
|
They certainly could, they seem hell bent on destroying Iran's proxies regardless of cost. But I do think there is massive pressure from the US and the rest of Israel's allies to not attack their nuclear or energy. Reason being that then Iran may target SA and the rest of the regions energy sending prices soaring.
But they might not give a care about that either.
|
More importantly, if attacked openly Iran will try to rush nukes.
It won't have anything warhead-worthy for years, but chances are they can start demonstrative testing within months.
When that happens Saudis will get their own nukes and if US won't provide them then Pakistan will.
Before you know it the whole non-proliferation strategy is in tatters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
