Leaked Hezbollah intelligence documents have been discovered regarding the damage from the pager explosions.
[removed tweet since OP removed]
The person who originally shared that says it’s fake (with some inconsistencies with what calendar they use for what, etc), reading through Twitter it seems like nobody can actually confirm the validity of it at all.
I also wouldn’t go sharing a Twitter account of a Trump supporting misinformation and anti-Muslim hate machine, but hey, would be hard to know who they are without cruising through the feed.
Last edited by PepsiFree; 09-20-2024 at 10:29 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Here's some discussion around the "legality" of the attack. So it does sound like Israel has breached an international agreement they are party to on a ban on booby traps.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
"of course we are scared, who can feel safe in this situation, who can feel secure about their phone now?"
The description from the trauma doctor are particularly nasty.
Nazralla: "Hezbollah will not stop their strikes as they are in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza".
Which I think strongly supports my position that the inhumane destruction in Gaza is leading to more attacks on Israel and not making them safer. Israel's is making the wrong decisions if safety and security is their goal. It's not working. More rockets fired today.
you guys want a 'good guy' and a 'bad guy' and there isn't one, you want a 'clean' war and that has never existed but what you really want is a set of rules that equalizes the conflict and gives Hamas and Hezbollah a fighting chance, that aint ever going to happen, Israel will always be able to kill 100 muslims or more for every Israeli and they always will, how hard is that to understand? what does it matter if it is right or wrong? do I think Israel is a moral country defending itself? no but if you climb into a cage with a lion you are going to get eaten.
I didnt say it was okay to target civilians, I said it was ok to kill them assuming the target is a legitimate one, is a mall a legitimate target? obviously no, it has no military value, is a bridge or a train track? most times yes even though you will certainly kill civilians when it is hit
If you launch missiles at an enemy barracks, and civilians delivering bread to the barracks or riding by on bicycles are killed, it’s not terrorism.
The civilians killed in the remote attacks in Lebanon were not targets. They died because they were unfortunately very near to the people who were legitimate targets. If the explosions killed as many civilians as Hezbollah soldiers, there would be a case that the attacks were indiscriminate. But I’d wager 95+ per cent of the people killed or injured were Hezbollah.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
If you launch missiles at an enemy barracks, and civilians delivering bread to the barracks or riding by on bicycles are killed, it’s not terrorism.
The civilians killed in the remote attacks in Lebanon were not targets. They died because they were unfortunately very near to the people who were legitimate targets. If the explosions killed as many civilians as Hezbollah soldiers, there would be a case that the attacks were indiscriminate. But I’d wager 95+ per cent of the people killed or injured were Hezbollah.
But you don’t know because we don’t have numbers.
Why wager on something you don’t know other than to just reveal an implicit bias?
Here's some discussion around the "legality" of the attack. So it does sound like Israel has breached an international agreement they are party to on a ban on booby traps.
I’m no legal expert and that guy is but here is the text of the agreement I think he is referencing on booby traps
booby trap means a device or materials that is designed adapted or constructed to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person approaches or disturbs an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
.
I couldn’t cut a paste so there may be typographical errors. It’s on page 10.
I’m not sure you could call these booby traps provided they were intentionally detonated by Israel.
which functions unexpectedly when a person approaches or disturbs an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.
To me this statement requires causality. The unexpected function happens when the person approaches, disturbs, or performs the act. Based what we know Israel intentionally detonated these devices. Ie no booby trap was tripped. If you look through that page of the document it might meet the “other devices clause” about remote munitions
But the “other devices” doesn’t apply to the section in article 6 (page 37) of the attachment that was referenced in the video. That only applies to booby traps.
I think there could be debate around proportionality and indiscriminate killing here as there are clauses discussing that.
I think in a court of law I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that they would have broken this treaty.
Why wager on something you don’t know other than to just reveal an implicit bias?
Because at some point it’s ok to use common sense and a little bit of logic and probabilities, based on the circumstances at hand.
Not even Hezbollah or the Lebanese government is disputing the fact or putting out claims that many civilians were harmed.
What sort of evidence exactly are you looking for? Autopsy reports for every individual killed and whether they were Hezbollah vs. non-Hezbollah? It’s not bias to make reasonable assumptions based on what we know and what’s being reported by all sides involved.
It’s the second post in a row where you have imagined a position that is easier to argue against instead of facing one directly, and relied on exaggeration like accusing people of insanity and “brain rot” when people have actually put forth reasonable argument that can at least be disagreed with on other reasonable grounds.
Your second paragraph misrepresents the complexity of the situation which has already been discussed, and the third paragraph misrepresents both that and the arguments being shared here. If you want to participate, at least have the guts to do so directly and the respect to engage with arguments that are actually being made instead of ones you find easier to handle.
Tbh, we must just be on different wave lengths because I still don’t see where I said anything misrepresenting the complexity of any situation or not “having the guts” to argue something.
You literally agreed with me a few posts later where you yourself mentioned this is not a war between Israel and Lebanon. My point was Hezbollah is the aggressor and it’s even more so complicated because they’ve entrenched themselves in the government and every day life in Lebanon.
I don’t have all day to debate every point raised and this is an outlet where I vent my thoughts, so if my posting style is not up to your standards, you’re free to just ignore my posts.
Because at some point it’s ok to use common sense and a little bit of logic and probabilities, based on the circumstances at hand.
Not even Hezbollah or the Lebanese government is disputing the fact or putting out claims that many civilians were harmed.
What sort of evidence exactly are you looking for? Autopsy reports for every individual killed and whether they were Hezbollah vs. non-Hezbollah? It’s not bias to make reasonable assumptions based on what we know and what’s being reported by all sides involved.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Look at the previous post supposedly dissecting the booby trap definition and apply that level of scrutiny, since apparently that’s valid reasoning here. Now what do you get?
To me this statement requires causality. The unexpected function happens when the person approaches, disturbs, or performs the act. Based what we know Israel intentionally detonated these devices. Ie no booby trap was tripped. If you look through that page of the document it might meet the “other devices clause” about remote munitions
But the “other devices” doesn’t apply to the section in article 6 (page 37) of the attachment that was referenced in the video. That only applies to booby traps.
I think there could be debate around proportionality and indiscriminate killing here as there are clauses discussing that.
I think in a court of law I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that they would have broken this treaty.
For the record I think this is wild. Hard to say more than that.
For the record I think this is wild. Hard to say more than that.
Can you walk me through how you are parsing this and how you connect the clauses. The whole treaty is sort of absurd because it’s trying to set in what conditions are you allowed to kill civilians.
The Israeli military’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, said the strike on Beirut’s southern Dahiya district targeted and killed Ibrahim Akil, a commander of Hezbollah’s elite Radwan Force, as well as 10 other Hezbollah operatives.
Tbh, we must just be on different wave lengths because I still don’t see where I said anything misrepresenting the complexity of any situation or not “having the guts” to argue something.
You literally agreed with me a few posts later where you yourself mentioned this is not a war between Israel and Lebanon. My point was Hezbollah is the aggressor and it’s even more so complicated because they’ve entrenched themselves in the government and every day life in Lebanon.
I don’t have all day to debate every point raised and this is an outlet where I vent my thoughts, so if my posting style is not up to your standards, you’re free to just ignore my posts.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalko
That's how you see it. They have claimed they are doing it in support of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel has moved troops from Gaza to the north, so in that sense their strategy of firing rockets was a success, and takes some pressure off of Gaza. So are they not acting defensively in that view? That's the thing. You look at it so simply, but for every action Israel takes, it has a cascading effect in the region, and why every action must be considered in it's entirety. I don't see Israel doing that, and it is the reason why their safety is not improving.
Had Israel reached a ceasefire deal with Hamas, Hezbollah may not have fired all those rockets south. I mean, sure, they may have, but you can't ignore the strong correlation and statements of fact. So by Israel continuing their questionable strategy in Gaza, they endangered their own security. Almost like the things I suggested earlier in the thread actually happen.
That's how you see it. They have claimed they are doing it in support of Palestinians in Gaza, and Israel has moved troops from Gaza to the north, so in that sense their strategy of firing rockets was a success, and takes some pressure off of Gaza. So are they not acting defensively in that view? That's the thing. You look at it so simply, but for every action Israel takes, it has a cascading effect in the region, and why every action must be considered in it's entirety. I don't see Israel doing that, and it is the reason why their safety is not improving.
Had Israel reached a ceasefire deal with Hamas, Hezbollah may not have fired all those rockets south. I mean, sure, they may have, but you can't ignore the strong correlation and statements of fact. So by Israel continuing their questionable strategy in Gaza, they endangered their own security. Almost like the things I suggested earlier in the thread actually happen.
So what if Hezbollah is claiming they are doing it in support of the Palestinians? Sure, that very well could be and likely is the reason they are firing rockets at Israel. But that does not excuse them from being the aggressor in this case on the northern border with Israel.
If Canada just started bombing Russia today because it was opposed to Russia’s war in Ukraine (just set aside NATO for a second), would Canada not be the aggressor in this case and provoke a response? And I say this as someone born in Kyiv who supports Ukraine 100% and thinks the Russian government is absolute scum.
Hezbollah has nothing to do with the Palestinian cause and its presence in today’s landscape is entirely based on aggressive tactics meant to provoke Israel.
I hope that the situation in Gaza is resolved soon, and it may quiet things down with Hezbollah (for a time), but the situation there is not sustainable and Israel can’t just allow Hezbollah to arm and re-arm, and continue provocations forever more.
