Comment by minkles 10 months ago
Considering Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in many countries, this probably should be considered an anti-terrorist operation. The targets are enemy combatants.
Also notably, it clearly did not intentionally target civilians, although there may be civilian casualties which is uncharacteristic of a terrorist attack.
[There are a few](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_g...)
Surprisingly there are several Arab countries, including the [Gulf Cooperation Council](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Cooperation_Council), and the UAE.
Hamas: European Union,[158][200] Argentina,[201][202] Australia,[17] Canada,[8] Israel,[203] Japan,[81][18] New Zealand,[162] Paraguay,[84] United Kingdom,[204] United States,[16] Organization of American States[205]
Yep, all western countries/entities, as expected.
Still applies; the only outlier in the Hezbollah entry is Malaysia, who most likely are doing so on sectarian lines or to follow the KSA's lead.
Not especially surprising, the GCC (of which the UAE is a member state) are Sunni petro-states that have been aligned with the US since the 50s. Hezbollah is a Shiite group who are patronized by Iran, who are the chief geopolitical rival of GCC countries and compete with them to sell fossil fuels on the international market.
I find it very difficult and out of place to discuss these kind of matters in HN. particularly because it is a very US centric forum, the user base share a lot of preconceptions and ideals that come from the education their society gave them.
It's expected, it's OK, but it just prevents discussion of certain topics.
Do you have a source? I didn't think any of the 22 countries in the Arab League considered Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization (either its political branch or its militia!).
Many of the countries you mention consider the militia to be a terrorist organization, but not the political wing. I wonder whether the pagers were carried by both groups.
https://english.alarabiya.net/2016/03/11/Arab-League-declare...
I suspect it's somewhat inconsistent but they are a big problem for many states who are looking at political and economical stability.
No I do not share values with the US government, which largely represents AIPAC’s interests and not my own.
Yes that is how "terrorism" is defined: one geopolitical entity's enemy relative to another
See here, even the US military can be labeled terrorists in the eyes of american people https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41578412
The word is notoriously ill-defined, so much in fact that most newspapers of record will not use it [1]
[1] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/standards-editor/article-und...
My point is that countries designate groups of people as "terrorists" all the time for political reasons. Here's another example: "Venezuela: UN experts condemn use of counter-terrorism laws to convict trade unionists and labour leaders"
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/08/venezuela-un...
Yes, and his point is that "terrorism" is still a meaningful term for groups like Hamas.
But we know you understand this.
Do LGBT people in Russia deliberately target non-combattants with shocking levels of violence?
If not, then the definition might still hold meaning and Russia's appellation might be ridiculous.
just to our ears and sometimes eyes during lgbt parade season, at least by this new definition of violence where the only requirement for it to be violence is for someone to make the claim that it is.......
In all seriousness though why even engage this line of argument at this point? very few brain cells are required to understand the solar system sized gap between the standards used for a western country to label something terrorist and for Russia (or Iran, or China, etc...). The argument is either being made in bad faith or in fanaticism driven ignorance, neither of which words on the internet will change. The correct and only action for this level of argument is ridicule.
I don't know about LGBT people, but I do know the IDF "deliberately targets non-combattantts with shocking levels of violence". If these designations are so fair and neutral and free of politics then they should be a designated terrorist group too shouldn't they?
Hard disagree. The IDF kills civilians, yes, but I am not aware of a deliberate effort to target civilians. The civilian deaths are overwhelmingly a consequence of Hamas blending in with the population and conducting operations where any retaliation puts civilians at risk.
There is a meaningful difference between collateral death and terrorism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip_mass_graves
> According to paramedics and rescue teams involved in the recovery of the bodies, some bodies were found with hands tied, indicating possible execution. Other victims were found with bullet marks on their heads, raising suspicions of summary executions. There are also reports of torture marks on the bodies.[34][35]
>According to Palestinian government-run news agency Wafa, some bodies were found suspicious of organ theft with their stomachs open and stitched up, contrary to the usual wound closure techniques in the Gaza Strip. The mutilated body of a little girl wearing a surgical gown was also found, prompting suspicions that she had been buried alive.[34]
This does not sound like "collateral damage".
> It killed and injured more than 3 thousand people, including children.
Well the number of killed versus injured is significant and not mentioned. The mention of children is bundled with the large figure. It could be interpreted that 3000 people were killed, 2900 of which are children, which is exactly how it will be quoted and portrayed.
This is pretty irresponsible use of language.
Check headlines and how this is portrayed and compare the statistical figures mentioned. Also who is being quoted and if they are in quotes or how they are quoted. There's a lot of ambiguity.
In times of war, which this unfortunately is, irresponsible reporting is dangerous and leads to further problems.
It absolutely does not. The violence will continue with both sides dishing it out and feeling completely justified in doing so because of what was previously done to them.
Or one side accepts a two state solution and stops using its proxies to attack Israel. Unfortunately, there have been eight attempts to give the Palestinians their own state and its been rejected every time. In the 90's, Bill Clinton gave them practically everything they asked for and was still rejected.
The only condition they will ever accept is when Israel ceases to exist.
Which begs the question - who's really initiating and continuing the violence? Israel has offered peace. HAMAS and its proxies like Hezbollah have rejected it every time. It should be obvious there's only one side who wants peace and one side who only wants war.
So what's your solution then?
Incidentally it does work. It's just horrible. Nagasaki / Hiroshima are a fine example of forced capitulation. Now I'm not suggesting nuking anyone but the best way this ends, with the lowest future body count is someone wins decisively at this point.
They are dealing with it...
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israeli-police-cla...
Hezbollah launched a war against Israel 12 months ago. Why is it suddenly an issue for you when they get hit back? Is it only a problem when Israel fights back?
Stop launching rockets at Israel, comply with UN Resolution 1701, and the conflict is over. Why are you overcomplicating this?
Nothing else worked for what? What is the policy goal being pursued with this attack?
I assume by "many countries" you mean the US and its allies? Is that it then? Your definition of "terrorist" is whoever the West designates a terrorist? Ergo Nelson Mandela was a terrorist.