15 ms·

Hezbollah bought a specialty item (pagers) and many countries/companies are legally prohibited from doing business with Hezbollah. My sense is that these two fa

by slibhb 2y ago

Hezbollah bought a specialty item (pagers) and many countries/companies are legally prohibited from doing business with Hezbollah. My sense is that these two facts were all but necessary for Israel to carry out this operation. So "changed the world" is hyperbole.

tuyguntn 2y ago
IDF/military buildings are near civilian areas, considering that IDF is buying bombs to kill civilians (definition of terrorism), do you think it is okay to bomb civilian buildings located near IDF buildings? I changed the word "pager" to "building"
- slibhb 2y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- invalidname 2y ago
  [flagged]
- cooloo 2y ago
  [flagged]
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  IDF buys bombs and kills children. Source that theyre systematically targeting children?
  - andag 2y ago
    He... Did not say that. He said they are targeting civilians, and basic math on casualty numbers ("hamas" numbers being the same as in use by both US and IDF military intelligence) can at least tell you they're doing very little to avoid it.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Doing little to avoid something isnt the same as doing it on purpose.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - threatofrain 2y ago
        When we design data structures do we not say that the sum of all things are intended tradeoffs? It doesn’t make sense to say that you intended to buy milk but you didn’t intend to spend money. Nothing in life works like that.
        gruez 2y ago
        You guys are talking past each other. "intend" in this context is means two things: 1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead) 2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed) tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
        tuyguntn 2y ago
        > tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1 No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        buying bombs to kill civilians is not the same as buying bombs and accidentally killing civilians.
        threatofrain 2y ago
        One must embrace the sum of the decision. You don't choose to drive your car without expending energy. You choose both. You don't blow up thousands of bombs in streets and marketplaces and only choose to kill the people you want — you choose it all. Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all. In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
  - Qem 2y ago
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort. That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay". If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation. More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
        dzhiurgis 2y ago
        Her testimony was admitting injured children. How they got there is completely different story and she explains NONE of it.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        She does actually, and I'll take her word over yours.
  - tuyguntn 2y ago
    If you really wanted the truth, you would have already found it yourself by now and I don't need to give you a source to prove it. This is only one example out of >14.000 dead children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions
mardifoufs 2y ago
Yeah, and almost every civilian under a certain age in Israel is technically part of the army, most likely has army training, and can be called back into active duty so they are a fair game and whatever is done to them is necessary and fine according to your logic, right?
- dogma1138 2y ago
  If they are in active service, conscription or called reserves yes they are legitimate targets. Simply killing a 28 year old because they could be called up is not. This isn’t that difficult to understand, not that the militant groups in the region care or follow any rules in the first place.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment. They are also already assigned to units, already have their equipment in storage, etc. Just like the Hezbollah members that got targeted in civilian areas. Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.
    - weatherlite 2y ago
      > Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service. If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.

by slibhb 2y ago

tuyguntn 2y ago

IDF/military buildings are near civilian areas, considering that IDF is buying bombs to kill civilians (definition of terrorism), do you think it is okay to bomb civilian buildings located near IDF buildings? I changed the word "pager" to "building"

slibhb 2y ago
[flagged]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
invalidname 2y ago
[flagged]
cooloo 2y ago
[flagged]
HDThoreaun 2y ago
IDF buys bombs and kills children. Source that theyre systematically targeting children?
- andag 2y ago
  He... Did not say that. He said they are targeting civilians, and basic math on casualty numbers ("hamas" numbers being the same as in use by both US and IDF military intelligence) can at least tell you they're doing very little to avoid it.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Doing little to avoid something isnt the same as doing it on purpose.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - threatofrain 2y ago
      When we design data structures do we not say that the sum of all things are intended tradeoffs? It doesn’t make sense to say that you intended to buy milk but you didn’t intend to spend money. Nothing in life works like that.
      - gruez 2y ago
        You guys are talking past each other. "intend" in this context is means two things: 1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead) 2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed) tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
        tuyguntn 2y ago
        > tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1 No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
        HDThoreaun 2y ago
        buying bombs to kill civilians is not the same as buying bombs and accidentally killing civilians.
        threatofrain 2y ago
        One must embrace the sum of the decision. You don't choose to drive your car without expending energy. You choose both. You don't blow up thousands of bombs in streets and marketplaces and only choose to kill the people you want — you choose it all. Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all. In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
- Qem 2y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestinian-children-killed-idf-israel-war https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/gaza-palestini...
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      "Doctor says" is definition of hearsay Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort. That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay". If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation. More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
      - dzhiurgis 2y ago
        Her testimony was admitting injured children. How they got there is completely different story and she explains NONE of it.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        She does actually, and I'll take her word over yours.
- tuyguntn 2y ago
  If you really wanted the truth, you would have already found it yourself by now and I don't need to give you a source to prove it. This is only one example out of >14.000 dead children: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBkNDNj05XA And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions

mardifoufs 2y ago

Yeah, and almost every civilian under a certain age in Israel is technically part of the army, most likely has army training, and can be called back into active duty so they are a fair game and whatever is done to them is necessary and fine according to your logic, right?

dogma1138 2y ago
If they are in active service, conscription or called reserves yes they are legitimate targets. Simply killing a 28 year old because they could be called up is not. This isn’t that difficult to understand, not that the militant groups in the region care or follow any rules in the first place.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment. They are also already assigned to units, already have their equipment in storage, etc. Just like the Hezbollah members that got targeted in civilian areas. Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    > Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service. If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.