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.
The stuff is blowing up inside stores and buildings around innocent people. How is that targeted? Israel doesn’t give 2 shits about innocent people being injured and possibly killed.
How is this not super targeted? Hitting 3000 terrorists and and only a handful of civilians as collateral is exceptionally good. For you it’s probably bad anytime Israel kills one of their enemies.
You know Israel can find a peaceful solution if it only permits the establishment of an independent state of Palestine. But instead they prefer to continue their warmongering politics.
The unsaid implication of your loaded question is that the absence of a Palestinian state is “the fault of the Palestinians”. The further implication is that “Israel has no partner for peace” even now. Basically, the implication being we need to keep doing whatever the Israeli right wants in perpetuity.
If by some miracle you’re not just parroting right wing pro-Israeli talking points, please elaborate what the hell you mean with your question instead.
Traditionally, a targeted attack minimizes collateral damage to almost zero. Do you have stats on who was killed/injured? I do know 2 children were killed. I’m sure they were hard-core Hezbollah.
Doing this kind of attack indicates Israel didn’t care AT ALL who they took out. Ah, much like their reactions in Gaza.
3000 pagers exploded. All had small amounts of explosive like 20 g. You can watch videos of them exploding in traffic, supermarkets, etc. people next to them remain unharmed. So you have 3000 explosions all over the place including crowded areas. Two dead children is a quota of 1500:1. That is exceptionally good.
I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.
According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That’s not to say that’s an acceptable ratio, in fact it’s horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of “a handful” to “a bunch” is quite a lot better than the average.
Israel has been massing forces on the Lebanon border and saying they will invade for months now. At what point is the Lebanese government allowed to defend itself?
The stuff is blowing up inside stores and buildings around innocent people. How is that targeted? Israel doesn’t give 2 shits about innocent people being injured and possibly killed.
It’s still a million times better than dropping a thousand pound bomb on a refugee camp to take out 1 hamas guy, and that’s at least commendable.
It’s worse that they’re blowing up people in a country they’re not openly at war with, stirring shit and risking even more retaliation.
How is this not super targeted? Hitting 3000 terrorists and and only a handful of civilians as collateral is exceptionally good. For you it’s probably bad anytime Israel kills one of their enemies.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80 you know International laws exist for a reason, and Israel clearly violated many international laws, which by the way were created to prevent such events like WWII.
You know Israel can find a peaceful solution if it only permits the establishment of an independent state of Palestine. But instead they prefer to continue their warmongering politics.
Why was there no independent state of Palestine established in 1949-1967?
You think that’s some kind of gotcha. It isn’t.
Would you care to elaborate?
The unsaid implication of your loaded question is that the absence of a Palestinian state is “the fault of the Palestinians”. The further implication is that “Israel has no partner for peace” even now. Basically, the implication being we need to keep doing whatever the Israeli right wants in perpetuity.
If by some miracle you’re not just parroting right wing pro-Israeli talking points, please elaborate what the hell you mean with your question instead.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
Nakba was in 1948. 1949-1967 Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza. Why didn’t Palestinians establish a state then and there?
Why Jews didn’t forgive Nazis in 1946?!?
Traditionally, a targeted attack minimizes collateral damage to almost zero. Do you have stats on who was killed/injured? I do know 2 children were killed. I’m sure they were hard-core Hezbollah.
Doing this kind of attack indicates Israel didn’t care AT ALL who they took out. Ah, much like their reactions in Gaza.
3000 pagers exploded. All had small amounts of explosive like 20 g. You can watch videos of them exploding in traffic, supermarkets, etc. people next to them remain unharmed. So you have 3000 explosions all over the place including crowded areas. Two dead children is a quota of 1500:1. That is exceptionally good.
Compare that to the Hezbollah rocket than killed 11 Druze children in Israel.
Wow only 2 dead children. Amazing, let’s celebrate!
Members of Hezbollah endanger their families willingly.
I’m glad we can punish the children of criminals for their parents’ crimes.
Children suffer from all kinds of stupid decisions their parents made.
Ah, so we’re allowed to do anything bad to someone if their parents do it first?
So like killing a “handful” of Israeli civilians would be “exceptionally good” if the target was a bunch of IDF reservists?
I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.
According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That’s not to say that’s an acceptable ratio, in fact it’s horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of “a handful” to “a bunch” is quite a lot better than the average.
https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm
It’s never good, but when Hezbollah chose to restart the violence they knew it was never going to be without collateral
Israel has been massing forces on the Lebanon border and saying they will invade for months now. At what point is the Lebanese government allowed to defend itself?
Israel and Hezbollah have always had forces on the border staring at eachother.
After Hezbollah broke that status quo, Israel has been threatening to invade if they didn’t stop.
Can you explain why you’re blaming Israel for responding more than Hesbollah for starting it?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Lebanese_conflict this article clearly contradicts your statement. And it doesn’t help that Israel is also illegally occupying part of Lebanon either.
Occupying parts of Lebanon? The Sheba farms are a tiny sliver of land. Syria even has a better claim to it than Lebanon.
Which of my statements is contradicted by this?
Ahistorical
Hezbollah could just chill and not attack Israel and this wouldn’t happen.
Argue the opposite and surf the wave of dialectic to the truth.