6 ms·

If it's impossible to detect you could use these to bomb planes, or anything else. An undetectable explosive capable of killing and wounding a crowd of people w

If it's impossible to detect you could use these to bomb planes, or anything else. An undetectable explosive capable of killing and wounding a crowd of people with no reagent, just a trigger? Doesn't pass the smell test. To further my knowledge - did Hamas coordinate with Hezbollah for Oct 7? Or did they start launching rockets out of solidarity and general support? How many rockets = 1 pager? Is Israels response proportional? Maybe half the number of pagers should have exploded?

vorpalhex 2y ago
Hezbollah has fired 20,000 rockets since 2000. They started firing rockets in the 1980s. Hezbollah's stated aim in their 1985 charter is the Destruction of Israel and to help the Ayatollah of Iran create a Muslim Caliphate and kill the non-Muslims. So yes, killing them seems appropriate. If you don't want your electronics exploding, don't attack the Jews.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. At some point somebody will have to deescalate, but Israel has had the upper hand for half a century by now, and never did anything but attack. It's really hard to complain about the underdogs attacking too.
  - golergka 2y ago
    > The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. Were the massacres of native jewish populations also done for the sake of freeing area for Israel? UPDATE: Since I cannot post new comments, I'll reply here. > But as a point in fact group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". This is false. I'm talking about Jewish communities which have continuously lived in the region for 2 thousand years, like community in Hebron. They were much more numerous just a few hundred years before. For example, back in 17th century, about half of the population of Gaza was Jewish. You can take a guess about what happened to that half. Statements like "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years", just as "Jews came from Europe" are false narratives distributed for propaganda purposes.
    - the_gorilla 2y ago
      This makes no sense. Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted and it had to be "the holy land".
      - golergka 2y ago
        > Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. First of all, most of the new jewish settlements in the beginning of 20th centuries were in the coastal swamps, not in the desert. Second — how about a cultural and practical connection to a region which had a significant Jewish community continuously for the last few thousand years with close ties to the diaspora. And finally — most of Israeli Jews come from the Middle East. Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? > Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted This is false. Britan gave false promises and then actively worked against attempts to establish the country. They turn the blind eye to massacres of the jews, and actually turned back jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Founders of Israel had to go to literal war with British authorities to achieve their gains.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? Because they weren't invited by the folks living in the place they wished to settle (who in fact had been living there continuously, by and large, and in every metric were much more "native"). More specifically: the new migrants were more or less welcomed by the locals, from the Mamluk period onwards -- but once they started arriving in highly disproportionate numbers, post-1880, and signaling an intention not to assimilate, and pretending that they had a supremacist "right" to settle there based on what the region's temporary colonial occupier (the British) and the scribblings of some weird Austro-Hungarian ideologue told them -- that's when things started to get "complicated", and they began to find themselves not so welcome in their desired place of residence. As any group should naturally expect if they tried to settle somewhere where they could not trace reasonably close ancestry, and in very large numbers. Also "homeland" is nonsense of course as applies to post-1880 migrants. We need to have some kind of a reasonable definition for what constitutes an "ancestral right" to live somewhere. The simple fact the component of ancestry that this group does have with historic Palestine lies with groups that were expelled or otherwise left in successive waves, ending the Crusades (but for most of them, back to the Roman/Byzantine eras), and which mixed significantly with other groups (far removed from the region in their origins) along the way. I'm not saying this completely precludes any claim of "ancestral right"; it's a thorny question -- one which applies to countless groups all over the world, each equally deserving of consideration. We need to be human and forgiving and all, and in principle there should be a safe place for all of us in this world. But not a supremacist right. And it is precisely this claim of a supremacist right to settle in their desired place of residence (fully trouncing the rights of people who in fact been living their continuously for millenia -- give or take migrations within successive empires); along with the successive wavs of violence employed to enforce this "claim" -- which lay the grounds for the post-1917 conflict that we are now stuck with.

vorpalhex 2y ago

Hezbollah has fired 20,000 rockets since 2000. They started firing rockets in the 1980s. Hezbollah's stated aim in their 1985 charter is the Destruction of Israel and to help the Ayatollah of Iran create a Muslim Caliphate and kill the non-Muslims. So yes, killing them seems appropriate. If you don't want your electronics exploding, don't attack the Jews.

marcosdumay 2y ago
The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. At some point somebody will have to deescalate, but Israel has had the upper hand for half a century by now, and never did anything but attack. It's really hard to complain about the underdogs attacking too.
- golergka 2y ago
  > The population there has been the victims of genocides for the sake of freeing area for Israel since more than half a century before Israel was even created. Were the massacres of native jewish populations also done for the sake of freeing area for Israel? UPDATE: Since I cannot post new comments, I'll reply here. > But as a point in fact group you are referring to, being by and large composed of descendants of recent migrations from other regions (with no direct ancestry in Palestine for 1000+ years) -- is better described as "long-term resident" rather than "native". This is false. I'm talking about Jewish communities which have continuously lived in the region for 2 thousand years, like community in Hebron. They were much more numerous just a few hundred years before. For example, back in 17th century, about half of the population of Gaza was Jewish. You can take a guess about what happened to that half. Statements like "Jews didn't live in Palestine for 2 thousand years", just as "Jews came from Europe" are false narratives distributed for propaganda purposes.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    This makes no sense. Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted and it had to be "the holy land".
    - golergka 2y ago
      > Nobody told Israel they had to be in the desert, their barbaric and outdated religion told them to go there. First of all, most of the new jewish settlements in the beginning of 20th centuries were in the coastal swamps, not in the desert. Second — how about a cultural and practical connection to a region which had a significant Jewish community continuously for the last few thousand years with close ties to the diaspora. And finally — most of Israeli Jews come from the Middle East. Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? > Britain gave them the opportunity to establish Israel anywhere they wanted This is false. Britan gave false promises and then actively worked against attempts to establish the country. They turn the blind eye to massacres of the jews, and actually turned back jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Founders of Israel had to go to literal war with British authorities to achieve their gains.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        Why would they go into a completely different region instead of their homeland? Because they weren't invited by the folks living in the place they wished to settle (who in fact had been living there continuously, by and large, and in every metric were much more "native"). More specifically: the new migrants were more or less welcomed by the locals, from the Mamluk period onwards -- but once they started arriving in highly disproportionate numbers, post-1880, and signaling an intention not to assimilate, and pretending that they had a supremacist "right" to settle there based on what the region's temporary colonial occupier (the British) and the scribblings of some weird Austro-Hungarian ideologue told them -- that's when things started to get "complicated", and they began to find themselves not so welcome in their desired place of residence. As any group should naturally expect if they tried to settle somewhere where they could not trace reasonably close ancestry, and in very large numbers. Also "homeland" is nonsense of course as applies to post-1880 migrants. We need to have some kind of a reasonable definition for what constitutes an "ancestral right" to live somewhere. The simple fact the component of ancestry that this group does have with historic Palestine lies with groups that were expelled or otherwise left in successive waves, ending the Crusades (but for most of them, back to the Roman/Byzantine eras), and which mixed significantly with other groups (far removed from the region in their origins) along the way. I'm not saying this completely precludes any claim of "ancestral right"; it's a thorny question -- one which applies to countless groups all over the world, each equally deserving of consideration. We need to be human and forgiving and all, and in principle there should be a safe place for all of us in this world. But not a supremacist right. And it is precisely this claim of a supremacist right to settle in their desired place of residence (fully trouncing the rights of people who in fact been living their continuously for millenia -- give or take migrations within successive empires); along with the successive wavs of violence employed to enforce this "claim" -- which lay the grounds for the post-1917 conflict that we are now stuck with.