8 ms·

Considering Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in many countries, this probably should be considered an anti-terrorist operation. The targets are

Considering Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in many countries, this probably should be considered an anti-terrorist operation. The targets are enemy combatants. Also notably, it clearly did not intentionally target civilians, although there may be civilian casualties which is uncharacteristic of a terrorist attack.

guerrilla 2y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right.
- minkles 2y ago
  But it stops a third wrong.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    It absolutely does not. The violence will continue with both sides dishing it out and feeling completely justified in doing so because of what was previously done to them.
    - minkles 2y ago
      So what's your solution then? Incidentally it does work. It's just horrible. Nagasaki / Hiroshima are a fine example of forced capitulation. Now I'm not suggesting nuking anyone but the best way this ends, with the lowest future body count is someone wins decisively at this point.
      - secstate 2y ago
        Correction, the best way this ends now is that Bibi lives to a nice old age and dies of natural causes and not in prison. This is not the Empire of Japan. This is a poorly funded proxy war being kept just below a boil so certain members of Israel's political class are not found to be criminals.
        minkles 2y ago
        I agree there to some extent, but believe me it's not going to be all roses if you change the leadership. It will just be different actors. And in the transition time, things will get worse. I think you are chasing the wrong solution.
      - philistine 2y ago
        You’re rewriting history to suit your point of view. The Japanese state was uninterested in capitulating after the nuclear bombs. It’s the declaration of war by the Soviets and rapid invasion of then-Manchuria which led the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender. They trusted the West to keep the emperor more than the Communists.
        minkles 2y ago
        You’re making an exclusionary argument to discredit mine and use the rewrite history point. Come on. My point stands as do your secondary points. But that was a principal contributing factor.
        numpad0 2y ago
        GP's actually true that the nukes wasn't the decisive factor but the Soviet invasion was. The popular narrative that American nukes ended it is merely the most useful version.
        philistine 2y ago
        The bomb was not a principal contributing factor. We're talking about fascist ideologues hellbent on every man, woman and child dying to stall an invasion of their homeland. Of course the thing they feared most weren't new types of bombs, which did not change their situation. The thing the feared most were those horrible communists.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        Who said I have a solution? The violence will continue, I just want my country (America) to stop involving itself by providing material/financial/etc support to Israel. I think this is likely to happen once baby boomers are fully aged out of the political process (because the synthesis of christianity and zionism are far less popular with younger generations.) I do not propose a resolution to the conflict but do anticipate America distancing itself from the conflict.
        minkles 2y ago
        I don't disagree but if America distances itself now it will lose credibility, something which is somewhat low on the international stage at the moment. It has however done wonders for the defence industry here in Europe now we can't trust a traditional political ally. (This is not a criticism of the US, but a criticism of the UK and EU who should have military and political independence) I think you miss that people tend to become less idealistic and further right as they get older. The "boomer" generation is just replaced by more of the same people. It's never going to change.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        Defense of Taiwan is very important for the sort od reasons you're talking about. The defense of Israel though? That's a net negative which causes America a great deal of reputational harm around the world. With regard to Europe taking their own defense industry seriously again, I think that is ultimately a good thing for the American public, and in any case isn't caused by the trend of younger Americans disliking Israel. Rather, it is caused particularly by a certain baby boomer presidential candidate who simultaneously suggests that America shouldn't oppose Putin invading Europe AND that America should instead triple down on support for Israel. As for people going "further right" as they get older, the younger American generations disliking Israel isn't a right/left thing. Young right and young left both dislike Israel, for their own reasons. Churches in America, particularly white evangelical churches from whom support for Israel is the strongest, are in a precipitous decline. They look like nursing homes now, younger generations aren't coming back and the boomers in those churches are in a panic over it.
    - burningChrome 2y ago
      Or one side accepts a two state solution and stops using its proxies to attack Israel. Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. In the 90's, Bill Clinton gave them practically everything they asked for and was still rejected. The only condition they will ever accept is when Israel ceases to exist. Which begs the question - who's really initiating and continuing the violence? Israel has offered peace. HAMAS and its proxies like Hezbollah have rejected it every time. It should be obvious there's only one side who wants peace and one side who only wants war.
      - balthigor 2y ago
        Israel in no way offers "peace". Never have. Nor do any of the other "actors" in this tragedy.
      - danbruc 2y ago
        Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. Can we have a source for that claim? I do not know how you would arrive at the number eight and how any offer would qualify as giving the Palestinians all they asked for. The Oslo process was probably the best shot but did not even come close to resolving the conflict. A lot of the contentious issue were just deferred to be figured out within five years and that simply never happened.
        burningChrome 2y ago
        Sorry, my bad. Its actually 5, not 8. https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/ https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-off... 1st Rejection - The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. 2nd Rejection - Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it. Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan. 3rd Rejection - 20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there. Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs. 4th Rejection - In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors. 5th Rejection - In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.
- csmpltn 2y ago
  [dead]
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    Nothing else worked for what? What is the policy goal being pursued with this attack?
  - drawkward 2y ago
    Try taking the matter into their own hands by bringing the illegal west bank settlers to trial. Tried that yet?
    - minkles 2y ago
      They are dealing with it... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-clash-with-settlers-west-bank-2024-07-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-cla...
      - drawkward 2y ago
        Not really... The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Lk4.dwc7.VYzrqTyxV9SA https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank...
      - GordonS 2y ago
        Has Israel tried removing themselves from lands they are illegally occupying? Has Israel tried not constantly lobbing missiles and rockets at Lebanon? (yes, I know Hezbollah had launched many rockets at territories Israel are illegally occupying, something like 1/4 of the number Israel has launched). Has Israel tried not dropping leaflets on Lebanese civilians, demanding they leave so Israel can steal their homes and land? Has Israel even tried stopping harassing the Lebanese population with sonic booms and armed drones? AFAICT the only thing Israel actually has tried, is more of the above.
      - anigbrowl 2y ago
newspaper1 2y ago
[flagged]
segasaturn 2y ago
[flagged]
- minkles 2y ago
  This is a straw man argument. I designate you as a banana! There, the word banana is now meaningless. It is quite well defined.
  - segasaturn 2y ago
    My point is that countries designate groups of people as "terrorists" all the time for political reasons. Here's another example: "Venezuela: UN experts condemn use of counter-terrorism laws to convict trade unionists and labour leaders" https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/venezuela-un-experts-condemn-use-counter-terrorism-laws-convict-trade https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/venezuela-un...
    - omginternets 2y ago
      Yes, and his point is that "terrorism" is still a meaningful term for groups like Hamas. But we know you understand this.
  - I-M-S 2y ago
    The word is notoriously ill-defined, so much in fact that most newspapers of record will not use it [1] [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-understanding-the-guidance-behind-the-globes-coverage-of-the-israel/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-und...
- omginternets 2y ago
  Do LGBT people in Russia deliberately target non-combattants with shocking levels of violence? If not, then the definition might still hold meaning and Russia's appellation might be ridiculous.
  - snapplebobapple 2y ago
runarberg 2y ago
[flagged]
maronato 2y ago
[flagged]
- minkles 2y ago
  It's how you tell them > It killed and injured more than 3 thousand people, including children. That can be rewritten with some academic honesty added if you try.
  - kbos87 2y ago
    Genuinely curious, how so? This is what I see being reported in major news outlets. Thousands injured, including the families of low ranking officials who happened to be at home together when it happened.
    - minkles 2y ago
      > It killed and injured more than 3 thousand people, including children. Well the number of killed versus injured is significant and not mentioned. The mention of children is bundled with the large figure. It could be interpreted that 3000 people were killed, 2900 of which are children, which is exactly how it will be quoted and portrayed. This is pretty irresponsible use of language. Check headlines and how this is portrayed and compare the statistical figures mentioned. Also who is being quoted and if they are in quotes or how they are quoted. There's a lot of ambiguity. In times of war, which this unfortunately is, irresponsible reporting is dangerous and leads to further problems.
rowanseymour 2y ago
I assume by "many countries" you mean the US and its allies? Is that it then? Your definition of "terrorist" is whoever the West designates a terrorist? Ergo Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.
- bamboozled 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - rowanseymour 2y ago
    Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
    - XajniN 2y ago
      Technically yes
  - cornercasechase 2y ago
    No I do not share values with the US government, which largely represents AIPAC’s interests and not my own.
- minkles 2y ago
  What about The Arab League? They're designating them as terrorists, US or not... Edit: Above is retracted - cjbprime found later information.
  - cjbprime 2y ago
    Do you have a source? I didn't think any of the 22 countries in the Arab League considered Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization (either its political branch or its militia!). Many of the countries you mention consider the militia to be a terrorist organization, but not the political wing. I wonder whether the pagers were carried by both groups.
    - 2y ago

guerrilla 2y ago

Two wrongs don't make a right.

minkles 2y ago
But it stops a third wrong.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  It absolutely does not. The violence will continue with both sides dishing it out and feeling completely justified in doing so because of what was previously done to them.
  - minkles 2y ago
    So what's your solution then? Incidentally it does work. It's just horrible. Nagasaki / Hiroshima are a fine example of forced capitulation. Now I'm not suggesting nuking anyone but the best way this ends, with the lowest future body count is someone wins decisively at this point.
    - secstate 2y ago
      Correction, the best way this ends now is that Bibi lives to a nice old age and dies of natural causes and not in prison. This is not the Empire of Japan. This is a poorly funded proxy war being kept just below a boil so certain members of Israel's political class are not found to be criminals.
      - minkles 2y ago
        I agree there to some extent, but believe me it's not going to be all roses if you change the leadership. It will just be different actors. And in the transition time, things will get worse. I think you are chasing the wrong solution.
    - philistine 2y ago
      You’re rewriting history to suit your point of view. The Japanese state was uninterested in capitulating after the nuclear bombs. It’s the declaration of war by the Soviets and rapid invasion of then-Manchuria which led the Japanese to accept unconditional surrender. They trusted the West to keep the emperor more than the Communists.
      - minkles 2y ago
        You’re making an exclusionary argument to discredit mine and use the rewrite history point. Come on. My point stands as do your secondary points. But that was a principal contributing factor.
        numpad0 2y ago
        GP's actually true that the nukes wasn't the decisive factor but the Soviet invasion was. The popular narrative that American nukes ended it is merely the most useful version.
        philistine 2y ago
        The bomb was not a principal contributing factor. We're talking about fascist ideologues hellbent on every man, woman and child dying to stall an invasion of their homeland. Of course the thing they feared most weren't new types of bombs, which did not change their situation. The thing the feared most were those horrible communists.
    - lupusreal 2y ago
      Who said I have a solution? The violence will continue, I just want my country (America) to stop involving itself by providing material/financial/etc support to Israel. I think this is likely to happen once baby boomers are fully aged out of the political process (because the synthesis of christianity and zionism are far less popular with younger generations.) I do not propose a resolution to the conflict but do anticipate America distancing itself from the conflict.
      - minkles 2y ago
        I don't disagree but if America distances itself now it will lose credibility, something which is somewhat low on the international stage at the moment. It has however done wonders for the defence industry here in Europe now we can't trust a traditional political ally. (This is not a criticism of the US, but a criticism of the UK and EU who should have military and political independence) I think you miss that people tend to become less idealistic and further right as they get older. The "boomer" generation is just replaced by more of the same people. It's never going to change.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        Defense of Taiwan is very important for the sort od reasons you're talking about. The defense of Israel though? That's a net negative which causes America a great deal of reputational harm around the world. With regard to Europe taking their own defense industry seriously again, I think that is ultimately a good thing for the American public, and in any case isn't caused by the trend of younger Americans disliking Israel. Rather, it is caused particularly by a certain baby boomer presidential candidate who simultaneously suggests that America shouldn't oppose Putin invading Europe AND that America should instead triple down on support for Israel. As for people going "further right" as they get older, the younger American generations disliking Israel isn't a right/left thing. Young right and young left both dislike Israel, for their own reasons. Churches in America, particularly white evangelical churches from whom support for Israel is the strongest, are in a precipitous decline. They look like nursing homes now, younger generations aren't coming back and the boomers in those churches are in a panic over it.
  - burningChrome 2y ago
    Or one side accepts a two state solution and stops using its proxies to attack Israel. Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. In the 90's, Bill Clinton gave them practically everything they asked for and was still rejected. The only condition they will ever accept is when Israel ceases to exist. Which begs the question - who's really initiating and continuing the violence? Israel has offered peace. HAMAS and its proxies like Hezbollah have rejected it every time. It should be obvious there's only one side who wants peace and one side who only wants war.
    - balthigor 2y ago
      Israel in no way offers "peace". Never have. Nor do any of the other "actors" in this tragedy.
    - danbruc 2y ago
      Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. Can we have a source for that claim? I do not know how you would arrive at the number eight and how any offer would qualify as giving the Palestinians all they asked for. The Oslo process was probably the best shot but did not even come close to resolving the conflict. A lot of the contentious issue were just deferred to be figured out within five years and that simply never happened.
      - burningChrome 2y ago
        Sorry, my bad. Its actually 5, not 8. https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-offer-to-have-its-own-state-5-times-in-the-past/ https://lawandsocietymagazine.com/how-palestine-rejected-off... 1st Rejection - The suggested split was heavily in favor of the Arabs. The British offered them 80% of the disputed territory, the Jews the remaining 20%. Yet, despite the tiny size of their proposed state, the Jews voted to accept this offer. But the Arabs rejected it and resumed their violent rebellion. 2nd Rejection - Ten years later, in 1947, the British asked the United Nations to find a new solution to the continuing tensions. Like the Peal Commission, the UN decided that the best way to resolve the conflict was to divide the land. In November 1947, the UN voted to create two states. Again, the Jews accepted the offer and again, the Arabs rejected it. Only this time, they did so by launching an all-out war. Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria joined the conflict. But they failed. Israel won the war and got on with the business of building a new nation. Most of the land set aside by the UN for an Arab state, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, became occupied territory. Occupied not by Israel, but by Jordan. 3rd Rejection - 20 years later, in 1967, the Arabs led this time by Egypt and joined by Syria and Jordan, once again sought to destroy the Jewish state. The 1967 conflict, known as the Six-Day War, ended in a stunning victory for Israel. Jerusalem and the West Bank, as well as the area known as the Gaza Strip, fell into Israel’s hands. The government split over what to do with this new territory. Half wanted to return the West Bank to Jordan and Gaza to Egypt in exchange for peace. The other half wanted to give it to the region’s Arabs, who had begun referring to themselves as the Palestinians, in the hope that they would ultimately build their own state there. Neither initiative got very far. A few months later, the Arab League met in Sudan and issued its infamous three-NOs, no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. Again, a two-state solution was dismissed by the Arabs. 4th Rejection - In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak met at Camp David, with Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Nasser Arafat, to conclude a new two-state plan. Barak offered Arafat a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, and 94% of the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. But the Palestinian leader rejected the offer. In the words of U.S. President Bill Clinton, “Arafat was here 14 days and said no to everything.” Instead, the Palestinians launched a bloody wave of suicide bombings that killed over 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands more, on buses, in wedding halls, and in pizza parlors. 5th Rejection - In 2008, Israel tried yet again. Prime Minister Ehud Omar went even further than Ehud Barak had, expanding the peace offer to include additional land to sweeten the deal. Like his predecessor, the new Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, turned the deal down.
csmpltn 2y ago
[dead]
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  Nothing else worked for what? What is the policy goal being pursued with this attack?
- drawkward 2y ago
  Try taking the matter into their own hands by bringing the illegal west bank settlers to trial. Tried that yet?
  - minkles 2y ago
    They are dealing with it... https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-clash-with-settlers-west-bank-2024-07-03/ https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-cla...
    - drawkward 2y ago
      Not really... The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank-settler-violence-impunity.html?unlocked_article_code=1.Lk4.dwc7.VYzrqTyxV9SA https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/16/magazine/israel-west-bank...
    - GordonS 2y ago
      Has Israel tried removing themselves from lands they are illegally occupying? Has Israel tried not constantly lobbing missiles and rockets at Lebanon? (yes, I know Hezbollah had launched many rockets at territories Israel are illegally occupying, something like 1/4 of the number Israel has launched). Has Israel tried not dropping leaflets on Lebanese civilians, demanding they leave so Israel can steal their homes and land? Has Israel even tried stopping harassing the Lebanese population with sonic booms and armed drones? AFAICT the only thing Israel actually has tried, is more of the above.
    - anigbrowl 2y ago

newspaper1 2y ago

[flagged]

segasaturn 2y ago

[flagged]

minkles 2y ago
This is a straw man argument. I designate you as a banana! There, the word banana is now meaningless. It is quite well defined.
- segasaturn 2y ago
  My point is that countries designate groups of people as "terrorists" all the time for political reasons. Here's another example: "Venezuela: UN experts condemn use of counter-terrorism laws to convict trade unionists and labour leaders" https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/venezuela-un-experts-condemn-use-counter-terrorism-laws-convict-trade https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/venezuela-un...
  - omginternets 2y ago
    Yes, and his point is that "terrorism" is still a meaningful term for groups like Hamas. But we know you understand this.
- I-M-S 2y ago
  The word is notoriously ill-defined, so much in fact that most newspapers of record will not use it [1] [1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-understanding-the-guidance-behind-the-globes-coverage-of-the-israel/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-und...
omginternets 2y ago
Do LGBT people in Russia deliberately target non-combattants with shocking levels of violence? If not, then the definition might still hold meaning and Russia's appellation might be ridiculous.
- snapplebobapple 2y ago

runarberg 2y ago

[flagged]

maronato 2y ago

[flagged]

minkles 2y ago
It's how you tell them > It killed and injured more than 3 thousand people, including children. That can be rewritten with some academic honesty added if you try.
- kbos87 2y ago
  Genuinely curious, how so? This is what I see being reported in major news outlets. Thousands injured, including the families of low ranking officials who happened to be at home together when it happened.
  - minkles 2y ago
    > It killed and injured more than 3 thousand people, including children. Well the number of killed versus injured is significant and not mentioned. The mention of children is bundled with the large figure. It could be interpreted that 3000 people were killed, 2900 of which are children, which is exactly how it will be quoted and portrayed. This is pretty irresponsible use of language. Check headlines and how this is portrayed and compare the statistical figures mentioned. Also who is being quoted and if they are in quotes or how they are quoted. There's a lot of ambiguity. In times of war, which this unfortunately is, irresponsible reporting is dangerous and leads to further problems.

rowanseymour 2y ago

I assume by "many countries" you mean the US and its allies? Is that it then? Your definition of "terrorist" is whoever the West designates a terrorist? Ergo Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.

bamboozled 2y ago
[flagged]
- rowanseymour 2y ago
  Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
  - XajniN 2y ago
    Technically yes
- cornercasechase 2y ago
  No I do not share values with the US government, which largely represents AIPAC’s interests and not my own.
minkles 2y ago
What about The Arab League? They're designating them as terrorists, US or not... Edit: Above is retracted - cjbprime found later information.
- cjbprime 2y ago
  Do you have a source? I didn't think any of the 22 countries in the Arab League considered Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization (either its political branch or its militia!). Many of the countries you mention consider the militia to be a terrorist organization, but not the political wing. I wonder whether the pagers were carried by both groups.
  - 2y ago