Hezbollah hand-held radios detonate across Lebanon, sources say
(reuters.com)301 points by shmatt 10 months ago
301 points by shmatt 10 months ago
You started a hellish flamewar with this, even by the standards of this pretty hellish thread. Please don't do that again. Religious flamewar in particular will get you banned here, regardless of which religion you have a problem with.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41581653.
Discriminating against a group of people on the basis of their religion can still be racist.
There's legal precedent for that in the US, Canada, the UK, France, the European Council on Human Rights, etc... Not Saudi Arabia though. Are you Saudi?
I don't see how that's "fucking scary" - the idea that only Arabs can be Muslim is itself racist, is it not?
It is somewhat understandable why some people associate terrorist attacks with Muslims, as unfortunate as that may be. Not that I'm saying that Muslims commit the most terrorist attacks, it just so happens that the most well known ones in the west happen to have been committed by Islamic extremists. E.g, WTC 93, 9/11, London Bombings, Boston Marathon.
why is terrorism most aligned with Islam? isn't it possible to frame any/every religion as "most likely to commit acts of terrorism" based on subjective interpretations of their tenets?
Only in recent times, with IS and similar organizations in the middle east. If you look at different historic periods you'd consider the Christians to be violent terrorists, even invading countries and starting lots of wars.
then we agree. personally i find the kind of terrorism associated with Christian Nationalism to pose more of an existential threat since i'm in the US and am exposed to a lot of it. despite that, i don't conflate christianity with terrorism.
the person i responded to thinks that Islam has a causal relationship with terrorism - what about the ideology leads you to believe that, besides the fact that the media you consume reports on it more often?
Truly disgusting how many people conflate attacking a terrorist organization with minimal civilian casualties with terrorism.
> The death toll rose to 12, including two children, Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad said on Wednesday. Tuesday's attack wounded nearly 3,000 people, including many of the militant group's fighters and Iran's envoy to Beirut.
The cost and years in the making of this through a shell company in Hungary, and also putting a random (and probably innocent) Taiwanese company in the target, for just killing 12 people including two children... Doesn't look like galaxy brain to me either.
No, not really. In contact with, certainly. Hezbollah holds ~12% of seats in the Lebanese parliament and its military wing is arguably as powerful as the Lebanese army. It would be surprising, arguably irresponsible, if cabinet ministers did not have a channel to communicate with them. Every government has back channels, even to straight up enemies. For example:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2008/mar/18/northernire...
>The NYT wrote today that Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon was injured (although this may have been in yesterday’s incident?), which makes it obvious that he works with Hezbollah.
A joke I saw:
"Why did the Iranian ambassador have a Hezbollah pager?"
"Because he left the Hamas pager at home."
Hezbollah Has launched thousands of missiles into civilian populations and has already caused the desertion of over 25% of the livable sections of the country. Lately, their weapons are getting better at avoiding the "Iron Dome"; just last week a missile hit an apartment building. A massive bombing plot was foiled this week. They have been getting more and more aggressive.
I would think that moves like these, primarily affect fighters, destroy the comms structure which is used to wage war (Hezbollah have their own communications system in addition to Lebanon's), and damage the "Hezbollah Elite" image which causes them to be such a power.
Would bombing Lebanon be a better than what they have done? I think much worse on all counts.
I am genuinely curious when I see blanket criticism. How would you respond if you were in Israel's shoes?
Younger Americans are by in large not buying Israel's bullshit. American support for Israel is a generational phenomenon and that support will be aging and dying out of the political process in the next 20 or so years, after that Israel will be on their own to face all the enemies they've made, and that won't end well for them.
I think this is why they've been so aggressive in recent years. They know their window of opportunity is closing.
LGBTQ+ and even women's rights are a recent phenomenon in the west, and still unfolding (and could revert). If you want the less enlightened society to embrace these rights, how do you propose to do it? Take their land? Killing their kids? Open air prison? I don't think these strategies are going to do it..
You can call Israel out on its bullshit while also doing the same with Hezbollah and Hamas, it's not mutually exclusive.
No one wants to holiday in an apartheid state. The younger generations have access to actual footage on the ground in Palestine, they will never support Israel.
No, because IDF soldiers are legitimate military targets in that context.
[flagged]