The Gaza heath ministry's figures remain the best (and basically only) source of casualties to date. While they're no longer able to record many deaths in hospitals or morgues, they've adapted by collecting casualty reports from other sources like a Google form (which makes the data a bit iffy, but better than nothing).
It is a report that was correctly widely criticized. Certainly worth reading, but worth being aware of this.
(I personally think that estimating that the eventual death toll will be 4x higher than the somewhat-verified death toll that exists today, based on guesses of the impact of the war on the population, is very disingenuous and misleading, and mostly a way to just be able to say much higher numbers.)
It wasn't "widely criticized", it's taking into account the starvation, attacks on hospitals... estimating how many people are going to die is important work.
Imagine the US having to face consequences for Iraq. One of the most fucked up collection of war crimes and violations of laws of war in the 21st century. The average American now thinks "we shouldn't have gone into Iraq" but has no idea the reputation the US has in the rest of the world because of this act
I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq. But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes. And I'm not persuaded that those crimes were widespread, relative to the scale of the military engagement.
Your statement seems to imply that the Iraq War was unusually bad in terms of war crimes. If so, you should be able to give several examples of 21st century conflicts which you're confident had fewer war crimes committed per capita. Can you do so?
The way I see it, there are two rough hypotheses here:
Hypothesis 1: The US is an unusually evil country which has a harmful effect on world affairs. Its actions in Iraq exemplify this. The recent trend towards US isolationism is good, since isolationism will diminish its pernicious effects on world affairs.
Hypothesis 2: War crimes and violations of the laws of war are ubiquitous in conflict. The international treaties prohibiting them were well-intentioned but largely fruitless. The psychology of war drives soldiers to commit war crimes, and/or the incentives to commit war crimes are too strong. The US has a free press, and has systems in place to prosecute service members who commit war crimes, so you hear more about war crimes committed by the US than by other countries. But the per capita rate of the US committing war crimes may actually be lower than average.
What evidence is available that lets us differentiate between these hypotheses?
>But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes.
Never forget the CIA employee who killed a random guy in a car crash in the UK by driving on the wrong side of the road (who the fuck does this accidentally?), then got promptly evacuated back to the US, so that the family seeking justice could be told "get fucked, she's important, you are not". Anne Sacoolas. I really think this says a lot about how the US treats the idea of justice.
That is, unfortunately, a norm in diplomatic persons. Erdogan's bodyguards savagely beat up protestors on American soil and nothing will ever come of it.
That's not some meaningful example of the US being especially bad in international relations, and certainly not evidence of the US being especially bad at committing war crimes.
> But many service members faced justice in the US for those crimes
Did they now? How many of the guilty went to prison for Abu Ghraib? Guantanamo? Bagram torture? The kidnapping of random civilians to get tortured is some heinous shit, yet very few people were convicted of it, let alone served any time even remotely worth of the crime. The worst I can find for Abu Ghraib in particular is 6 years, which is laughable; and all of the convicted were the service members perpetrating their crimes, none of their commanders were also convicted. Let alone the people who allowed torture as an "interrogation technique".
Can you provide a citation for the claim that these were literally random civilians (as opposed to people suspected of committing a crime or plotting to commit a crime)?
>very few people were convicted of it
The obvious possibility is that few were convicted because it wasn't widespread.
---
As an American, I think you are correct that these incidents may constitute evidence of institutional rot in our armed forces. I'm thinking maybe I should vote for politicians who will withdraw the US from NATO, so that the US will be involved in fewer wars in the future, and there will be fewer opportunities for American soldiers to commit war crimes. Do you support this?
Your own source states that Dilawar was arrested by an Afghan and turned over to the US as a suspect in a rocket attack. Just read the NY Times article as excerpted by Wikipedia.
Looks much more like a case of a guilty Afghan framing an innocent Afghan for a crime, than a case of the US flipping coins in order to kidnap civilians 'at random'.
This article doesn't appear to substantiate the claim that anyone was kidnapped solely for owning a Casio. Can you quote the specific excerpt that you believe substantiates this claim?
What fraction of watches worldwide would you estimate are Casio F-91W wristwatches? Supposing we know that Al Qaeda trainees are issued this specific make and model of watch. (The Guardian: "The Casio was known to be given to the students at al-Qaida bomb-making training courses in Afghanistan...") Are you familiar with the concept of a likelihood ratio? Can you estimate the likelihood ratio for someone being an Al Qaeda trainee given that they possess this specific make and model of watch? Do you understand how a sequence of likelihood ratios (pieces of evidence) can be multiplied together to get a posterior likelihood ratio, from which you can derive a probability estimate that e.g. someone is a terrorist?
>There was also another one who had the misfortune of sharing his name with a man accused of terrorism.
Suppose you learn that your local police department has arrested a man who shares the name of a man on your country's "most wanted" list. What would be an appropriate response? Fire the person who arrested him and everyone in the chain of command? Or accept that mistakes are made, and arresting innocent people is an inevitable part of having a justice system?
Now (as in the Dilwar case) imagine that your local police department is operating in a warzone, does not speak the local language, experienced an attack on their police building this morning, and are trained to fight wars as opposed to administer justice. What result do you expect?
I asked whether the people involved were "literally random civilians" vs "people suspected of committing a crime or plotting to commit a crime". All of your examples appear to be people suspected of crime, in some cases for good reason. So -- thanks for answering my question, I guess?
(To clarify, I agree that the US made serious mistakes in Iraq/Afghanistan, and Dilawar's story is incredibly sad and tragic. However, I think my original point about the comparative per-capita rate basically stands. Israel recently got hit by a large terrorist attack, akin to Sept 11, and I would argue their response has been far more indiscriminate and vindictive than the US's: https://x.com/AssalRad/status/1859069963132432562#m No one has provided any comparative data re: 21st century conflicts where we can be confident fewer war crimes were committed per capita, as I requested.)
>Considering the well known and documented facts around Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, that's obvious not possible and not true.
Given your very creative interpretation of the sources you've shared so far, where arresting someone who shares the name of a suspect is basically the same as arresting someone 'at random', I reckon there's a decent chance that this claim of yours is also based on a creative interpretation of some kind.
>NATO being a defensive alliance, your last point has no merit.
Are you sure we can trust the US to keep it a defensive alliance? Perhaps they will provoke the alliance into a conflict.
Perhaps it's best for the US to withdraw from the alliance so it stays defensive. That's safer for other NATO members, because it will prevent them from becoming entangled in conflicts that are provoked by the US.
Even if fighting a defensive war, the US will likely commit war crimes. They committed war crimes in Iraq, and also in Europe as part of WW2. (Along with ~every nation that participated in WW2, I believe.)
---
I just want you to take a consistent position here!
One consistent position is that we should think of war crimes as being sort of like regular crimes. If you picked up a newspaper and saw that someone committed a murder in your country, would you view it as a reflection on the millions of people who live in your country? Or as a reflection on that individual? Or somewhere in between?
Alternatively, if you actually believe your own arguments, that the US is a uniquely evil country, then you should accept the straightforward implications of that. You should wish to diplomatically disentangle the US from your own country, which means you should praise US withdrawal from NATO. If the US is evil, you shouldn't wish to be allied with it, same way you wouldn't wish to be allied with Nazi Germany -- even as part of a "defensive alliance".
Again, I just what you to take a consistent position. I don't particularly care so much what it is. I just want you to accept the very straightforward implications of the claims that you yourself are making!
Why should my tax dollars pay to defend your country, if my country will inevitably end up committing war crimes in the process, and open us up to accusations that we are all monsters, like the accusations you're making in this thread? This just seems like a lose-lose proposition to me, as a US citizen. It seems better to just not have this arrangement, and withdraw from NATO.
How would you feel if you were in my position? Can you see how absurd this conversation feels to me?
Looks much more like a case of a guilty Afghan framing an innocent Afghan for a crime, than a case of the US flipping coins in order to kidnap civilians 'at random'.
You're being far too charitable to the occupying forces.
Remember, they tortured the guy to death. Whether their own people picked the guy up off the street, or they outsourced the task to their local proxy forces (likely offering cash incentives, thus more or less guaranteeing that exactly this sort of thing would happpen), ultimately doesn't matter too much. If at all.
This article doesn't appear to substantiate the claim that anyone was kidnapped solely for owning a Casio. Can you quote the specific excerpt that you believe substantiates this claim?
More than a dozen detainees were cited for owning cheap digital watches, particularly "the infamous Casio watch of the type used by Al Qaeda members for bomb detonators."
>You're being far too charitable to the occupying forces.
I was responding to the specific claim: "The kidnapping of random civilians to get tortured". This claim seems to be clear hyperbole.
>they outsourced the task to their local proxy forces (likely offering cash incentives, thus more or less guaranteeing that exactly this sort of thing would happpen)
It says right there in the Dilawar article that the Afghan who framed him is suspected of being responsible for the rocket attack. But yes, I suppose this was all secretly orchestrated by the US somehow...
A pattern I'm seeing in this thread: Someone makes a hyperbolic "America is evil" claim. I spend, like, 60 seconds investigating. The claim doesn't appear to hold up.
It seems clear to me that you, and others, love to exaggerate how evil the US is, regardless of the facts. And you haven't given a historical example of a country that did a good job of addressing counterinsurgency/counterterrorism with belligerents who hide in a civilian popuation. For example, perhaps you think that China's method in Xinjiang represents a superior approach? Please, provide a model that you think worked well!
I just want you to do one of two things: (a) admit you/others in this thread might be exaggerating a smidge, or (b) embrace the logical implication of your position, that the US should withdraw from NATO.
I don't care which of those you do -- I just want you to be consistent!
As an American, I personally have become more and more convinced that the US should withdraw from NATO, with every comment that's left in this thread. It just isn't worth the risk that something like this will happen again in the future, should the US become involved in another major war.
And, I don't think Americans should die for people who love to exaggerate how evil we are. That's absurd, frankly.
I'll cop to (a), but only out of laziness, not for any of the broader motives you are attempting to impute. And definitely not to (b), which definitely does not follow from what you (falsely) think to be my position, at all.
Frankly -- to every extent you think we're busily trying to "dial up" America's innate evilness, it seems you're definitely trying to divert/deflect blame for its actions, also. For example, spinning the torture/murder of Dilawar as a matter of his being framed by locals (as if that were the primary cause of what happened to him); without focusing on the infinitely bigger circumstances behind his death, which is the simple fact of the occupying soldiers choosing to beat the guy to a bloody pulp in the first place.
There's also the weird way you describe his death as "sad and tragic", as if it were a car accident, or something similar fateful. It was nothing of the sort of course - it was a war crime, straight up.
Someone makes a hyperbolic "America is evil" claim.
They said nothing of the sort. The initial commenter made some serious (and in my view perfectly justified) criticisms of the fact that the US never seems to have undergone a genuine moral reckoning for the moral disaster that was the 2003 Iraq invasion.
But this is very different from an essentializing, moralistic statement like "America is evil". So for all your concerns about hyperbolicizing over small details such as why exactly so-and-so got picked up before they were tortured, you're clearly doing some serious hyperbolicizing yourself in this case, and in a much intentional, top-down way.
>not for any of the broader motives you are attempting to impute
Why do the errors of your "laziness" all point in the same direction? Motivated reasoning is the obvious explanation.
>spinning the torture/murder of Dilawar as a matter of his being framed by locals (as if that were the primary cause of what happened to him)
Yet again I will emphasize that I was responding to the claim "The kidnapping of random civilians to get tortured". Way up in this thread I stated:
>Can you provide a citation for the claim that these were literally random civilians (as opposed to people suspected of committing a crime or plotting to commit a crime)?
Perhaps you were too lazy to read that part?
The question here is not how gruesome the crime is. Repeating myself yet again: The question is the degree to which this crime reflects on the entire US nation, vs specific culpable individuals. Insofar as it reflects on the entire US nation, that's where the implication that we should withdraw from NATO is straightforward.
>There's also the weird way you describe his death as "sad and tragic", as if it were a car accident, or something similar fateful. It was nothing of the sort of course - it was a war crime, straight up.
I already stated in this thread: "I think you are correct that the US service members committed some fucked up war crimes in Iraq."
I won't respond to you further in this thread. It's increasingly clear based on your responses that you simply aren't reading what I'm writing, and aren't thinking very hard about this topic.
And, I don't think my nation should be defending yours. You're not an ally. An "alliance" means mutual benefit. But there's no benefit to me from partnering with you. Defending you is charity, and considered as charity, it is frankly terrible. I don't believe in charity for wealthy, self-righteous, entitled, smug, thankless people -- especially not when it entails significant personal risk.
You haven't remotely justified why my tax dollars should pay for your defense, given the risk of US service members committing more gruesome war crimes in the course of defending you, same way they did in WW2.
But there's no benefit to me from partnering with -you-. Defending you is charity, and considered as charity, it is frankly terrible. I don't believe in charity for wealthy, entitled, smug, thankless people.
The extent to which you're going out of your way to launch an all-out, gratuitously personalized and caustic attack like this (based on fully imagined attributes, such as how "wealthy" you think I am, or what kind of passport you think I hold) -- is really quite bizarre.
> Why should my tax dollars pay to defend your country, if my country will inevitably end up committing war crimes in the process, and open us up to accusations that we are all monsters, like the accusations you're making in this thread? This just seems like a lose-lose proposition to me, as a US citizen. It seems better to just not have this arrangement, and withdraw from NATO.
You seem to be making a number of assumptions, all of which are wrong.
Your tax dollars are defending your country and its interests, and it just so happens that defending other countries is in your country's interests. The US doesn't keep NATO existing out of the goodness of its heart, it's a geopolitical tool. The US wants to combat Russian and Chinese influence and prevent them extending it, so it has various alliances and similar deals (like in Korea, Japan, the weirdness with Taiwan).
Second, that war crimes are an inevitable fact of life and nothing can be done. This is bullshit. War crimes can be committed in "the heat of the moment", but if properly dealt with (punished), will not be a frequent thing.
Third, that an army which has committed war crimes is automatically "all monsters". Only if it refuses to deal with its war criminals and they're in sufficient numbers, yes, but neither of those are facts of life. Had the US executed the people responsible for torturing civilians to death, nobody would be saying that the US ignores its war criminals; it did nothing, so everyone is right to say it.
As for the rest, you're trying to deflect based on technicalities. It doesn't matter if the US or allied militias did the kidnapping, US service members tortured those people to death with zero due diligence. They were tortured to death for the sadistic pleasure of groups of people in individual locations that could have been dealt with.... But not in Guantanamo. There the torture was the result of an official policy, implicating multiple high level officials, so the rot ran very high.
Fun fact: do you know what the Arbeit Macht Frei of Guantanamo is? "Honor bound to defend freedom". Can't make this shit up, perfect for an illegal in existence, no evidence required, torture to death/vegetable status unlimited detention camp.
>Your tax dollars are defending your country and its interests, and it just so happens that defending other countries is in your country's interests.
So you will have no objection if we reassess our interests and decide that defending you no longer aligns with them? Because that's what many Americans, including me, are starting to think. I don't want conflict with Russia or China. As an American, that's not in my interest! And, I have no desire to partner with a country full of dishonest, self-righteous individuals such as yourself. That's not in my interest, either. Nor is it in my interest to risk a conflict on your behalf which could result in US soldiers committing more war crimes!
"Helping me is in your interest, buddy..." I know a con when I see one.
I'm hoping with Trump's election, the US will act as more of a neutral and peaceful arbitrator, instead of automatically taking the side of "allies" like you for some bizarre reason.
>will not be a frequent thing
You still haven't even attempted to address the key question of whether the per capita rate of war crimes in Iraq was notably high.
War crimes are wrong. I condemn them. I support more US-internal war crime investigations. But you've persistently failed to even address the question of whether US war crimes make it unusual.
Where are the executions? I suppose the Ukrainian military is all monsters?
Can you even give a single historical incidence of a country dealing with war criminals on its own side in a way you consider acceptable?
How about for your own country?
>No investigation; No prosecutions. Major-general Christopher Vokes commander of the Canadian 4th Armoured Division freely admitted ordering the action, commenting in his autobiography that he had "No feeling of remorse over the elimination of Friesoythe."
You are making more straightforward exaggerations, trivially falsified with 60 seconds on Wikipedia. "Nothing" is what Canada did in response to its WW2 crimes.
I'm done. There's no point in continuing with someone who delights in dishonesty.
> You still haven't even attempted to address the key question of whether the per capita rate of war crimes in Iraq was notably high.
What? So war crimes only matter if there were a lot of them? I've only skimmed the Geneva convention but don't recall seeing that part. In any case, you'd struggle to find a developed country in the past few decades with anything resembling the US war crime rate, and torture of civilians rate. So yes, obviously.
And there's a legitimate case to be made that ISIS and their crimes are the direct result of American incompetent handling of Iraq post the toppling of Saddam. So we can add some more to the pile.
> I'm hoping with Trump's election, the US will act as more of a neutral and peaceful arbitrator, instead of automatically taking the side of "allies" like you for some bizarre reason
You seem to have misconceptions about US foreign policy and what it means to be a US ally, and, hell, what Trump is and what he stands for (money). Check out what the US did to France with the Australian submarine deal, is that the an ally siding? With Trump in charge, his favourite dictators will do whatever they want.
In any case, good riddance. A few countries will be screwed through no fault of their own (Ukraine, Taiwan), being surrendered to a despotic regime. It's unfortunate, but it's clear that a lot of Americans cannot tell right from wrong, so it is what it is. The rest of the world can't force the US to continue in the role it took itself as the world police at least paying lip service to freedom and morality and what not. (More often than not this was propping up fascists and similar against anything left of Franco, but still, in some cases like Taiwan and Ukraine, something good came out of it)
But the EU will take the opportunity to stand up and become more autonomous, fully taking in on how unreliable the US is. The world will be better off, on average. It's just horrible how many people will have to suffer to get there.
US citizens/nationals/residents have rights that would be violated by an international court. For example, you can't have due process (as required by US law), a speedy trial, or a jury trial at the ICC. This makes the idea of handing people over to the ICC not only forbidden but wrong for obvious reasons.
Surely you don't expect people to give up these very fundamental rights so they could be tried in an international court?
Man, Trump isn't going to shit about leaving NATO. He'll moan about some countries not spending enough, that's about it.
Leaving NATO would mean closing US-bases in Europe overnight, not getting valuable intel from partners in NATO, jeopardizing US defense deals, and a million other things.
As always, it's grandstanding from Trump to get some extra bucks from his allies.
US pulling out of NATO would likely embolden China to make a move on Taiwan. Seeing how much of the US economy revolves around technology, I really don't think there's any other option than to defend Taiwan, as it stands. Sure - Europe also depends on chips from Taiwan, but they'd also be swamped in the Ukraine/Russia conflict.
I should start a running list of all the people who say "Trump isn't going to...!" and then how they act like it was all part of the plan when he actually does it.
* People who say "Trump isn't going to...!" and then how they act like it was all part of the plan when he actually does it.
* People who say "Trump is going to...!" and the how they quietly stop mentioning it and move on to the next (bad) thing he's going to do when he doesn't do it.
You also need a list for things Trump attempts to do but ultimately gets stopped by more reasonable people in his administration.
The size of that list in his prior term is a lot larger than many people are comfortable with, and the purge of insufficiently loyal members from the party as well as loyalty tests for appointees suggests much of that list is now back in play.
his first term, despite all the clownery and drama, ended up being run of the mill republican politics. Why do you think things will be different this time?
Preparation and intent. I don't think Trump believed he would win the first time around and people in his first administration were either loyal and stupid or competent and not willing to carry out his most extreme orders. This time he is putting a team in place that is malicious and willing to do whatever he says. He also has the added incentive of all of his court cases and debt from court cases that he would love to make disappear.
I don't think that leaving NATO would necessitate closing US bases in Germany or Italy; it is my understanding that those bases are required (to be provided by the respective 'hosts') as a condition of the treaties which ended World War II.
Parties can withdraw from a treaty. There's such a thing as state sovereignty. :)
They can withdraw based on treaty itself or based on law of treaties (art 42)
What happens then of course only depends on what the sovereigns will want to do... In this case I'd presume it would not mean restarting WW2 after zillion years have passed. :-)))
There's a large attempt to pin all of this on Netanyahu and his closest cabinet but what he's saying is pretty much supported by nearly all of Israeli society down to individual citizens. I encourage everyone to find people who live in Israel on X and translate their tweets so they can see for themselves.
It's utterly appalling, and the main reason I tend to think the end of apartheid in Israel will look substantially different than the end of apartheid in South Africa.
Liberal Zionists like to pretend Gallant was the "moderate one" but in reality there is essentially no moderate in current Israeli society, there is only the secular far right and the messianic further right. The two differ only in small derails of their preferred strategy when using the military to ethnically cleanse Gaza. There is no significant coalition that recognizes basic human rights for Palestinians.
He is a member of Netanyahu's party, which is a right-wing party (though not far-right in terms of Israeli politics).
He is certainly not a moderate, but he is far more trusted than Netanyahu and is considered a moderating and opposing influence on him by many people. Mostly representing the interested of the defence establishment, as opposed to purely political interests (or, if you ask me, as opposed to Netanyahu's only real interest, which is himself).
He's said this "many" times? Can you show some other times he's said this?
This clip is IIRC from about 3 days after Hamas invaded Israel and massacred civilians. He announced an utterly immoral siege policy, but abandoned it almost immediately.
And while you can certainly cherry-pick some awful statements from Gallant, he's also made many statements that make it clear that Israel is not targeting civilians.
That would hold true for something like a pay phone, but a personal electronic device, only used by the combatant, would not be associated with civilian use.
You're assuming your premise as your conclusion. I am not at all convinced about how many of those targeted yesterday actually qualify as combatants. Also, just because a combatant owns something does not make the thing military. Pagers are commonly used by people in emergency services, industrial technicians, and so on.
These pagers work only on Hezbollah's own military network. Lebanon literally had a civil war about this specific issue! People are doing a lot of axiomatic reasoning here about stuff they can look up.
I know Hezbollah operates their own telecoms, but I don't think it necessarily follows that this is exclusively military. This article (from an Israeli analyst) examines their communications infrastructure in more depth and points out that thanks to their political maneuvering they have de facto control of all telecommunications in Lebanon. I find it easy to imagine that at least some of the erstwhile pager users worked in an administrative or logistical capacity.
We'll see, but I think --- without claiming that anything we know right now is dispositive --- that this is going to net out as an attack that overwhelmingly impacted military personnel, for the simple reason that they were the ones who needed the pagers; so much so that the highest death toll from the attack thus far appears to be QF fighters in eastern Syria.
How would you even know which network a pager was on just by looking at it? They were thousands of bombs disguised as consumer devices in circulation in public. There are new reports that other consumer devices may also have been rigged with explosives.
I have no idea, but you could not use a Hezbollah pager for your job as an industrial technician, which was the claim made by the comment I'm replying to.
What if that industrial sector is managed by Hezbollah and you are responsible for making it run smoothly? They more or less run everything in south Lebanon so I imagine that includes key infrastructure like electricity, water, and telecoms. Staffers in those sectors might or might not be in Hezbollah themselves, but one has to assume a lot of the management is. I don't know about private industry.
It seems odd to me that random laborers would be issued military encrypted pagers, and it seems certain that you couldn't simply go buy one on your own (or at least, buy one and then use it on the Hezbollah military network), but we have reached a point of specificity on the thread where I'm comfortable that we're all talking about the same thing --- previously, I've gotten the sense that we were suggesting random workers who happened to need pagers might have these ones. My personal prediction is that everyone who had these things was a member of Hezbollah, based on the reading I'm doing, but that's all it is: a personal prediction.
That's not what they said. Pagers are used by civilians, no one would be on guard around them, they are not considered to be weapons. If you saw someone in a grocery store with a pager, you wouldn't distance yourself from them.
I don't agree but also don't care to litigate this point; the only point I'm on this thread to make is that no professional who routinely carries a pager could have mistakenly been carrying a Hezbollah pager. Also: it is interesting that Hezbollah literally fought a war over phone systems in Lebanon! The rest: these are some of the most complicated conflicts in the world and we're not going to settle anything on HN. I don't begrudge you your take, I just had those two claims to make.
Children were wounded and killed because they picked up these pagers (which they assumed to be safe). Explosives were distributed into public disguised as innocuous consumer devices, it's actually not that complicated.
I think the situation is much more complicated than that but can also, in rare circumstances, detect an intractable argument when it shows up on a message board. Does anything you're saying have anything to do with whether industrial engineers were unknowingly carrying Hezbollah military pagers, or whether Hezbollah fought a war against opposition parties in Lebanon to ensure that it had its own phone system? If not: there's not much productive for us to discuss here --- which is totally fine, there doesn't have to be.
You're assuming that. There has been no reporting on the details. For all we know she could have been sitting next to her father when the pager went off.
A pager is a piece of consumer electronics definitely associated with civilian use. There's a story about a little girl who tried to hand her dad his pager from the dinner table and it blew up in her face. Civilians will not expect consumer tech devices to be bombs.
according to who? A little girl was killed today precisely because she picked up someones pager. On top of that solar panels (!!!) are blowing up across Lebanon right now, do those count? Are those somehow incontrovertibly "associated" with a combatant?
I think the solar panel thing isn't confirmed? And so far as I've seen, it's only reported to have happened in on place in Dahieh. If it is confirmed, you'll also be waiting for reporting and evidence that it was a supply chain attack on solar panels (seems unlikely), or a direct attack on that building.
(It seems unlikely to me because we have reason to believe the handsets and pagers shared a contract manufacturer or distributor. Mossad isn't like Gambit from the X-Men; they can't just make random things blow up.)
Pretty cool how you have now ignored the part of the comment about the murder of a child, multiple times, from multiple commenters. Also, and relatedly, you seem to think that this can be....legitimated?...by making noises about the "value of the target", I'm curious how many of the dead or injured do you think are "high value" enough to carry out an attack like this? Seems kind of important for your "argument"! If quite a few of the dead and injured are merely couriers, or simply contractors, as a parent commenter pointed out, that sort of undermines the legal basis your relying to celebrate a terror attack. And as other reporting has brought up, if the mossad is so good at what they do, why did they do it now, with zero evidence that this will in any way affect the strategic posture of Hezbollah? Specifically, Hezbollah (and other outlets) are pointing out that very many of these injured are not, in fact, militant combatants.
The comment about gambit is about as puerile as I would expect at this point.
You've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread, as well as using HN primarily for political battle over recent months. We have to ban accounts that do those things, regardless of how right you are or feel you are, and regardless of how other commenters are behaving. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
Pretty telling that it is me, and not your top karma poster, who is getting this reprimand. You are welcome to ban me, and I'm not going to appeal or beg to stay here, its your site after all. But if all I had to do to make my account more palatable to you was mix in the occasional comment on a js framework, or cooking, or exploit development, while continuing to pour out anti-arab racism, as Thomas here has done, repeatedly, for months, than maybe you are doing me the favor. I have yet to see a single comment from you about that. For the record I have reviewed your the guidelines, and I stand by everything I've posted here. I don't use this site "primarily for political battle", in fact I have avoided "political" threads for years. If posting things like "all Palestinians belong in Jordan" as Thomas has done, in threads just like this, for months, isn't something worth responding to directly by you than your rules don't mean much. Or simply apply to less useful people.
EDIT:
I forgot about the part where Thomas here tells pacifist jews they are "getting close to the blood libel". That didn't merit a response from you either. Classy stuff dang.
Brother, I can link you to your own comments.
For example here's your "blood libel" comment
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40067633
I'm actually working, and just logged in to see if I have actually been banned, but I can absolutely go through your own comment history in the last 11 months and pull out each and every example I mentioned.
I used to respect you man, and if you read my responses to you, over these last 11 months, they start off annoyed but charitable, attempting to push you to examine your own position, exactly as you and 'dang and whoever are asking and expecting of commenters to do here, and you just keep posting absurd, racist statements and so they have deteriorated to today. I don't expect you to actually do anything about it at this point, but I want to leave a record on this site that I did what I said I've been doing, and you've been doing what I said you've been doing. Maybe you'll surprise me, I don't know.
EDIT:
I'm actually really really glad I linked this exact comment, because right beneath it is one of the other highest karma posters on this site, who is of Jewish descent, making my point for me in the best way possible, in opposition to you, and you are continuing in the thread to do exactly what it is I've been telling you you are doing; speaking out of your own ignorance and giving it a patina of authority for example here by gesturing at the ADL and saying "just google it" which is absurd.
You've misunderstood that comment. I blame message boards. I'm comfortable with what that thread says.
I'm not going to litigate my political beliefs with you here, because I don't think it'll work. But I'll tell you what: if you want to know more about what I actually believe, please feel free to email me and ask. My only warning to you is that my beliefs are a lot more boring than you might think they are.
I don't have any beef with you. For what it's worth: I didn't mean anything personal by the X-Men thing. I don't know who you are or really anything about you. If that read personally snarky, I get it, and will try to be more careful.
When have thousands of consumer devices, in public circulation, been covert bombs set off in unison? This is far, far outside of the norms of warfare.
To the parent's point, I'm looking at my iPhone thinking that Israel would murder me with it if they wanted, and it absolutely does not make me support Israel.
If a bomb blew up next to me in a grocery store, even if I wasn't injured, I'd consider myself "targeted" and that the people who exploded it were my enemy. Imagine that actually happening while you were at Safeway.
I wouldn't be surprised if this went well beyond Lebanon. It's time to start really scrutinizing our tech supply chain. I won't use any Israeli tech going forward.
Glib defeatism and the automatic surrender to any entity more powerful than you is sad, pitiable even.
The main way states exercise power is by making large enough shows of force that people behave exactly as you do, and roll over in submission. State powers may be able to silence, extort, or kill anyone, but they damn sure can't get everyone.
You assume. They've cracked down hard on anti-war protesters inside Israel. It's absolutely not a safe, nor even likely true, assumption that Mossad does not also surveil Israelis.
No they didn't? There's protests every day, "they" haven't "cracked down" on anything. Occasional arrests here and there on both sides of the protests. It's a democratic country, people have rights to express themselves.
Based on your comment history that's not surprising at all. I suppose you already know that just about every large corporation in the world has offices in/business with Israel?
What history? I don't even normally comment but this was crazy and horrible. I'm aware that companies have offices in Israel. I think that's quickly going to become a bygone era though. In fact, Intel just canceled a new Israeli office.
Massive, massive L for Israel. No one in their right mind is going to use Israeli tech or products going forward. They just devastated their own economy.
That's beside the point, though. Imagine you are in some non-aligned/involved country with no real stake in MENA politics, idk Thailand or Peru. Corporate/national security is your job. Absent some specific need that can't be supplied by anyone else, would you want to do business with them?
I mean regardless of which side you're on, you still wouldn't want to end up with a product that has a bomb in it by accident, even if it wasn't targeted against you.
Yeah, I'm sure that Israel is just so good that every single device didn't end up being owned by any one else.
I mean Israel is really really good at avoiding collateral damage (according to Israel), so everyone who's on the receiving end of this was Hezbollah (according to Mossad). I mean, they do have the most humanitarian army in the world after all (according to the IDF casualty reports)
That's a false dichotomy. I'm just saying that believing the IDF is non sense. They have never ever shown any ability to admit wrongful doing. Like even statistically, it's impossible for them to never hit the wrong target. Yet going by the IDF reports, that's more or less been the case for the past 50 years. They have also faked evidence and videos (the famous video in a hospital that showed "Hamas symbols" when it was an Arabic calendar)
At that point, even the Russian military's figures might be more reliable. As there are a few instances of publically admitting to destroying a civilian-only target ("by mistake" according to them).
The whole thing of Hamas is embedding itself and its infrastructure in the civilian areas. If civilians are requested to evacuate, informed about the fact their houses are used by Hamas and the rocket launchers, rocket factories, tunnels and electric infrastructure to support all of that is going to be targeted, then perhaps it is not exactly fair to use words “bombing civilians” as a matter or fact?
Talking about blood libel when you actually have blood on your hands. And I'm not against Semites, Jews or Palestinians, I'm against Zionism and the murder it's doing in the name of jews.
Stopping humanitarian operations because these are being targeted by the enemy is not the same as targeting populations, regardless of what partisan news out lets like TruthOut have to say about it.
Everywhere you turn, you will find that Hamas' explicit strategy is to maximize the humanitarian crisis in the region. They do this so that people like you will be their advocate.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...