641–650 of 832 posts
It’s like blowing up every single member of the gestapo simultaneously. The resistance could only have dreamed of such a mission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of these have anything to do with what you cited above, which was ICRC's summary of customary law about inherently indiscriminate weapons. Your first and second links here are examining entirely different challenges to the operation's legality, and the third is just some vague assertions from questionable sources like Francesca Albanese.
You could ask ChatGPT and get a perfectly cromulent answer on what these have to do with what I cited. The key theme is indiscriminate weapons used for indiscriminate attacks. Alas, you can lead a horse to water...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Hezbollah's own actions are significantly more targeted and have resulted in significantly fewer civilian casualties.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's Hezbollah that has been practicing very targeted, military only strikes against Israel. Israel on the other hand has killed thousands of Lebanese people and displaced over a million. That's just since the Oct 7th attacks. Prior to that Israel carpet bombed Lebanon on multiple occasions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl...
This is obviously false. Hezbollah was indiscriminately firing artillery into Israel and managed to kill, among other people, 12 Druze soccer players in the Golan Heights. I don't know how far off we are on our assessment of current Israeli governance, but I'd bet it's not as far as you think we are. But I'd also guess we're wildly far apart on Hezbollah, which, along with Ansar Allah in Yemen, are some of the most a…
That is very indiscriminate. They targeted Israel but the rockets landed in Syria. But some how managed to hurt Israelis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hezbollah's own actions are significantly more targeted and have resulted in significantly fewer civilian casualties.
This is just luridly false, especially (but not exclusively) in the context of Hezbollah's own actions in Syria, where they made and broadcast propaganda videos of them deliberately starving Madaya. When you make claims like this, you call into question everything else you're saying; it's hard to imagine where you could have gotten this notion from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just luridly false, especially (but not exclusively) in the context of Hezbollah's own actions in Syria, where they made and broadcast propaganda videos of them deliberately starving Madaya. When you make claims like this, you call into question everything else you're saying; it's hard to imagine where you could have gotten this notion from.
We’re talking about Israel, not Syria.
Again: it's hard to understand where you could getting this notion that Hezbollah attacks are highly targeted from. That is anything but their operational signature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We’re talking about Israel, not Syria.
It's equally true in Israel, where Hezbollah fired tens of thousands of rockets indiscriminately, killing, among other things, a Druze children's soccer team in the Golan Heights. You can read this on Amnesty (no friend of Israel's) if you want. Again: it's hard to understand where you could getting this notion that Hezbollah attacks are highly targeted from. That is anything but their operational signature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>Military might is the thing keeping the USD the world reserve currency instead of the GBP, EUR or Yuan. It's literally the core keeping the US economy and prosperity. > No it's not. The size of the American economy, it's extensive trade, the independence of the Central Bank and the rule of law and commitment to paying debts do that. Americans do not force anyone to trade in USD. The OP is correct, historically. US…
>The size of the American economy And how did the American economy get to that size without the military protecting it from IDK, the USSR just taking it? >As long as you dealt in USD, you were supported. And what happened to you if you wanted to trade with the USSR? You're omitting that part
> And how did the American economy get to that size without the military protecting it from IDK, the USSR just taking it?
The US hegemony successfully strangled the USSR leading to the current Russian oligarchy (with a dictator at the top). The USSR never found itself in a position to expand its borders without threatening an internal insurrection, a coup, and/or the extermination of most of the military forces in a single conflict. US funded the rebuilding of Europe as part of the manufactured hegemony, allowing free trade to supply europe with cheap goods and workers safely across the waters, or under strict supervision of US intelligence for deals with the USSR and the rest of Asia. The USSR wasn't part of these agreement negotiations per se. They had to deal with their own internal politics and manufacturing limitations, while negotiating with countries that had a veto-enabled silent partner.
TBH, I have no idea what people are talking about when are implying "the American economy" is large. It's 8% of world pop and is largely an exporter of natural resources. The strength of the US economy is the reliability of the bond market. The USSR had no chance of taking the US, but did meaningfully threaten the security of the US during the cuban missile crisis. USSR was considered a credible threat to most of Europe for the duration of the cold war, in a carefully structured scenario of mutual destruction.
> And what happened to you if you wanted to trade with the USSR? You're omitting that part
World politics is not as simple as cause and effect. Many countries did deal with embargoed/sanctioned countries, including the US - notably the sale of grain to the USSR during the 70s. If you wanted first crack at new trade deals or wanted security guarantees from the US for delicate trade deals, you had to make allowances according to US wishes. Germany made it clear that they were going to purchase natural gas from the USSR as a matter of their own energy security. The US made an allowance. Maybe one US partner attacked another (Iraq vs Kuwait), the US would step in militarily. You wanted to sell oil to Russia? Sanctions or embargoes or worse, you were not able to call on the US navy when your shipping lanes were disrupted. Maybe the US called on some pirates regularly to raid your ships, maybe not. Thems the breaks, mafia style.