581–590 of 832 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel was able to monitor communications on the pagers for years and this allowed them to be quite certain of who they were targeting. "Footage from Reuters, Al Jazeera, AP, and local Lebanese reporters shows numerous injured civilians" How do you know they were civilians?
How do YOU know they were terrorist? What would you call people who were around the individual with that pagers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The idea that in a war there can be legal and illegal actions established by international treaties to protect civilians as much as possible can only work if two (or more) legitimate states are fighting each other This is not true (the laws of war work and have been applied successfully in conflicts not involving two or more legitimate states) and it's an assumption that seems to have negatively informed the questi…
This operation was one of the most targeted military operations known in warfare. International law doesn't hold Hezbollah accountable for example. That is the reality today.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The figure of merit in a military strike is casualties, not KIA; it's the "wounded" part you actually care about (in fact, in some tactical situations, wounding is preferable to killing, as it ties up adversary logistical resources). Since the pagers that were targeted were exclusively used by Hezbollah (which fought an actual civil war with the Lebanese security forces specifically in order to establish its own tele…
Hezbollah is a legal political party in Lebanon. This is an important detail buddy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bomb in the pagers was so weak it could only harm someone directly holding it or if it was in a pocket.
There are videos where the surrounding people were hurt by the pagers, so, what's the explaination for that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. "Opportunity to kill in base" is completely vague and varies depending on the military tribunal that will try you. Israel has, AFAIK, never said that there was no other way to kill those people. >At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. https:…
What massive collateral damage?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International law, as poorly enforced as it is, needs to have answers what to do with organizations that exist for the reason to destroy another country and that is financed through hostile nations. In this case Iran. Lebanon suffers as well here and Israel certainly isn't the main threat. The Geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants in this case and you cannot be more targeted than this operation. You spoiler a…
> needs to have answers what to do with organizations that exist for the reason to destroy another country Organizations...like Irgun? Iran has existed for thousands of years....the Persian people's existence predates Judaism by hundreds of years. So how you equate Iran with being a state explicitly existing to destroy Israel, a state that is less than 100 years old, is beyond me. But don't let me get in the way of y…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International law, as poorly enforced as it is, needs to have answers what to do with organizations that exist for the reason to destroy another country and that is financed through hostile nations. In this case Iran. Lebanon suffers as well here and Israel certainly isn't the main threat. The Geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants in this case and you cannot be more targeted than this operation. You spoiler a…
> you cannot be more targeted than this operation You've posted this in multiple places in this conversation, and it's just sort of strange. A sniper shooting a uniformed enemy is "targeted." A thousand little bombs that blow up a bunch of people including some civilians is... less targeted.
This is just an easy sanity-check for a validity of a statement. Name an operation that is more targeted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International law, as poorly enforced as it is, needs to have answers what to do with organizations that exist for the reason to destroy another country and that is financed through hostile nations. In this case Iran. Lebanon suffers as well here and Israel certainly isn't the main threat. The Geneva convention doesn't apply to combatants in this case and you cannot be more targeted than this operation. You spoiler a…
What? Iran is a 2574 years old. Saying Iran exists to "destroy Israel" is absurd as your attitude to International law. Was Iran just sitting there planning how to destroy Israel for 2500 years? Enjoy WW3, because that's where that attitude will take you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were Israel, I would have not invaded Gaza, which would have resulted in far fewer civilian casualties, and also would have ended the strikes by Hezbollah. Also, if you look at the data on attacks by Israel against Lebanon, they are disproportionate, Israel launching 10x more airstrikes, even going so far as to level entire city blocks of apartment buildings in Beirut. I remember just on the first day of attacks…
> If I were Israel, I would have not invaded Gaza During the war Israel was attacked from the territories of Gaza, Lebanon, the west bank, Iraq, Iran, and Yemen. All of these were unprovoked, except maybe Iran. All by parties openly calling for Israel's destruction. Gaza had invaded Israel, killing 1200 and kidnapping 250. What do you think the above attackers would do if Israel showed there was effectively no retali…
> It has achieved the best civilian-combatant death ratio of any urban war in modern history.
False.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
And East Jerusalem and the Gaza strip. I'd also argue that the occupations of Lebanon and Syria are illegal, and that taking control over the Philadelphi corridor was an act of war against Egypt. If you think such crimes of occupation and aggression are "very much needed", then I'll have to consider you morally impaired beyond the ability to take part in a reasoned discussion.
You intentionally warp statements. At this point I am just here to disagree with you.