Comment by borski

Comment by borski 2 days ago

"Who was hit" specifically refers to who was the target; who owned those pagers.

I did not misunderstand what Hezbollah was, please. I spent years working intel. I'm well aware that terrorist groups often provide social services to the civilians they claim to protect. In large part, it's how terrorist groups often maintain power.

This attack did not target doctors or nurses. It targeted Hezbollah operatives. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and Israel is at war with them. Social services run by Hezbollah were not the target, but if a doctor or nurse happens to be a Hezbollah operative, then they were targeted.

Again: the goal was Hezbollah operatives. If you were a doctor or nurse and unaffiliated with Hezbollah, you were not targeted.

I'm not really sure how to be more clear.

dragonwriter 2 days ago

> I did not misunderstand what Hezbollah was, please. I spent years working intel.

So you used juxtaposition of concepts you new were unrelated to create a false impression knowingly, rather than because you failed to understand the nature of the situation, and we are to take the deliberately dishonest propaganda technique as superior to genuine ignorance?

Reply View 1 reply

borski 2 days ago

That's a lot of words to say "I discovered one spot in which you misspoke, and that means you must be a deliberate warmongering asshole"
But no matter how many words you use to say that, it will remain untrue.
I did not intend to create a false impression, imply any kind of propaganda, be dishonest, or anything else. Your implication is, frankly, insulting.
My contention is very simple: they targeted Hezbollah operatives, very clearly, and given this particular vulnerability could not really have targeted them any more specifically. These were devices that were owned by and used by Hezbollah operatives, regardless of their role in the organization. Civilians did not use these devices, and the intent was not to harm any civilians.
The end. I'm done playing your games, as I believe I have stated my position very clearly, and at this point you are intentionally missing the point solely to argue some misguided other point about moral relativism.
Have a lovely week.

Reply View | 0 replies