At least 20 more people were killed and 450 injured in Lebanon on Wednesday after a series of new explosions of wireless devices rocked the South, the Bekaa and the southern suburbs of Beirut, according to the Ministry of Health and the Lebanese Red Cross.
It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.
I don’t know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as a kid, I thought to myself, “how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?”
Or, “why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?”
News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.
Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.
in the same way that all SS members are war criminals
That’s absolutely not how the nazis’ war crimes were handled post-war.
Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
(At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more…thorough in their de-nazification.)
Also, a janitor in a civilian building will never be an active combatant by any stretch of international law, no matter which organisation they belong to.
In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.
From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment
Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently
I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?
Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction. Human Rights Watch
Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)
Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an ‘indiscriminate’ attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he’s in?
Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts
Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him.
Bibi is fucking kids at night? I thought he couldn’t get more disgusting for fucks sake.
Someone’s personal bedroom has a bit more of what is known as “a reasonable expectation of privacy” than… *literal marketplaces. To pretend you don’t understand the difference is pathetic.
And no-amount of your garbage propaganda will change the fact that you’ve tried asserting mutually exclusive things to be the case. Like propaganda usually does, claiming literally impossible things.
You CAN NOT answer the question. Was it extremely targeted and Israel killed a child on purpose, or did Israel attack so indiscriminately that it killed several innocents and harmed thousands of innocents.
It can’t be both. And I know Netanyahu is a scumbag politician, but I’m sure even his personal bedroom wouldn’t fit 3000 people.
So which is it? Extremely targeted (meaning these civilians are dead on purpose) or wildly uncaring (an indiscriminate bombing)?
Hezbollah is, also, a political party. It’s military wing was formed to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.
I don’t know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as a kid, I thought to myself, “how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?”
Or, “why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?”
News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.
Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.
That’s absolutely not how the nazis’ war crimes were handled post-war.
Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
(At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more…thorough in their de-nazification.)
Also, a janitor in a civilian building will never be an active combatant by any stretch of international law, no matter which organisation they belong to.
In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.
Do the confederates next, they were back in power in 10 years and terrorizing black people with the KKK shortly after.
From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment
The people getting these communication devices aren’t exactly the kitchen personnel
True. Who would want a 9-year-old-girl as kitchen personnel?
Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently
I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?
Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)
You can’t have it both ways.
Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.
It’s one or the other.
That’s a very childish way to look at it.
Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an ‘indiscriminate’ attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he’s in?
Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts
Bibi is fucking kids at night? I thought he couldn’t get more disgusting for fucks sake.
Someone’s personal bedroom has a bit more of what is known as “a reasonable expectation of privacy” than… *literal marketplaces. To pretend you don’t understand the difference is pathetic.
And no-amount of your garbage propaganda will change the fact that you’ve tried asserting mutually exclusive things to be the case. Like propaganda usually does, claiming literally impossible things.
You CAN NOT answer the question. Was it extremely targeted and Israel killed a child on purpose, or did Israel attack so indiscriminately that it killed several innocents and harmed thousands of innocents.
It can’t be both. And I know Netanyahu is a scumbag politician, but I’m sure even his personal bedroom wouldn’t fit 3000 people.
So which is it? Extremely targeted (meaning these civilians are dead on purpose) or wildly uncaring (an indiscriminate bombing)?