I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.
That said, you do know Hezbollah is basically the same as Israel, just without the backing of the USA, right? They also want genocide. The way this was dealt with was one of the best options when dealing with a group that wants to genocide your country. It also shows Israel chose to start the war with Hamas, and likely allowed the October 7 attack to happen, if they’ve had this capability all along.
The dad who’s girl died literally brought this on himself. He chose religious fanaticism over family. He’s in Lebanon, not Gaza, not West Bank - he could have chosen not to be part of a group that wants to wipe out a whole nother group. This is on him the same way it’s on an antivaxxer when they’re kid gets sick. There’s plenty of damn good reasons to wish Netanyahu dead and in hell, but this ain’t one. I doubt him and his right wing extremist possé came up with this operation since they would have deliberately chosen something with way more innocent casualties.
I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.
Based on… what exactly?
The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”
And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.
No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”
“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”
You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.
You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.
And you should read Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
Eye for an eye makes the world go blind only works when one party doesn’t exist solely to exterminate another.
That’s what Hezbollah is.
I have never defended genociders - you on the other hand keep defending Hezbollah.
The world needs to deal with Hezbollah the same way it needs to deal with Zionism and the same way it eventually dealt with the Nazis.
Tell me dumbass, do you think Netanyahu and co. will stop his campaign on Gaza if everyone decided not to retaliate? Or would he just order his men to take advantage of the situation and shoot them down? Do you think the Nazis or any other group, such as Hezbollah, intent on genocide would accept peace?
Of course ideally such corrupt evil fucks could be eliminated with no innocent casualties. But that’s unfortunately not the way the world works. Do you think innocent casualties didn’t occur when other fascist evils were fought? You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?
You’re either a naïve kid, or have thought up of miracle solution like a death note.
This was a case of monsters fighting monsters; we’re lucky that this at least was an actual very precise strike one monster did to the others, rather than their usual M.O. of just striking buildings with missiles.
You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?
I have never defended genociders
Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.
So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?
I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?
Hey @oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org, you were saying that “these were extremely surgical strikes, people in the vicinity weren’t harmed”?
Thousands of people injured, all guilty of something ofc, because Israel would never do an attack which might harm innocents. Right? /S
fairly sure hezbollah has more than 2800 members
You’re genuinely pathetic enough to try and imply that none of the victims are innocent?
I loathe “people” like you.
I think they’re implying this mostly hit Hezbollah members, not than none of the victims were innocent.
That said, you do know Hezbollah is basically the same as Israel, just without the backing of the USA, right? They also want genocide. The way this was dealt with was one of the best options when dealing with a group that wants to genocide your country. It also shows Israel chose to start the war with Hamas, and likely allowed the October 7 attack to happen, if they’ve had this capability all along.
The dad who’s girl died literally brought this on himself. He chose religious fanaticism over family. He’s in Lebanon, not Gaza, not West Bank - he could have chosen not to be part of a group that wants to wipe out a whole nother group. This is on him the same way it’s on an antivaxxer when they’re kid gets sick. There’s plenty of damn good reasons to wish Netanyahu dead and in hell, but this ain’t one. I doubt him and his right wing extremist possé came up with this operation since they would have deliberately chosen something with way more innocent casualties.
Based on… what exactly?
The clear implication is that “number of Hezbollah member > victims = no innocent victims.”
And then you instantly jump into defending genocide. Holy fucking shit I honestly can’t communicate with words how disgustingly pathetic I find that.
No, I’m not gonna engage with your whataboutism and start arguing with you about how “Hezbollah deserved this absolutely pathetic terrorist attack.”
“Brought it on himself brought it on himself”
You fuckers still haven’t realised that Hammurabi’s law makes the whole world blind, huh? That was almost 4000 years ago, ffs. Read a book, preferably a modern one and not some tome of propaganda from thousands of years ago.
You’re literally defending the death of a 9-year old girl. You have to be sick in the fucking head to do that. Honestly.
And you should read Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance.
Eye for an eye makes the world go blind only works when one party doesn’t exist solely to exterminate another.
That’s what Hezbollah is.
I have never defended genociders - you on the other hand keep defending Hezbollah.
The world needs to deal with Hezbollah the same way it needs to deal with Zionism and the same way it eventually dealt with the Nazis.
Tell me dumbass, do you think Netanyahu and co. will stop his campaign on Gaza if everyone decided not to retaliate? Or would he just order his men to take advantage of the situation and shoot them down? Do you think the Nazis or any other group, such as Hezbollah, intent on genocide would accept peace?
Of course ideally such corrupt evil fucks could be eliminated with no innocent casualties. But that’s unfortunately not the way the world works. Do you think innocent casualties didn’t occur when other fascist evils were fought? You think only military personnel were killed in WW2?
You’re either a naïve kid, or have thought up of miracle solution like a death note.
This was a case of monsters fighting monsters; we’re lucky that this at least was an actual very precise strike one monster did to the others, rather than their usual M.O. of just striking buildings with missiles.
You’re seriously saying “they deserve the ‘eye-for-an-eye’ treatment” while Israel is actively escalating the conflict?
Oh okay. So where have I done that? In assuming that 3000 civilians who were harmed weren’t exclusively Hezbollah? Which would be an utterly ridiculous claim seeing how many literal children there are involved.
So… you’ve never defended genociders. Then let’s see if you will. Is Israel committing a genocide in Gaza?
I’ve actually been in the military and have had training on what is and isn’t legal to do in armed conflict. Have you?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12
Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those: (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
© which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.