OV9

Beany wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 1:49 pm The indiscriminate nature of Israels attack using everyday devices that in normal context wouldn't be considered wartime materials is what makes it a war crime.

It's very easy for us car enthusiasts to sit comfortably at home and decide who is guilty of war crimes, without knowing all the facts (obviously I also don't know all the facts). However, there is some pertinent context I think you may be overlooking:

- Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, at least according to most Western governments (and several Middle Eastern ones as well).

- Hezbollah, like Hamas, is constitutionally committed to literally eliminating (not coexisting with) the State of Israel.

- On 8 October 2023 Hezbollah recommenced firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli targets. One such rocket killed 12 children.

- I hope nobody is disputing the right of any country to defend itself against terrorists, subject to complying with international law when doing so.

- If you want to discuss legality, it would be helpful if we can agree that virtually all wars involve civilian casualties. Not many people are disputing that the pager attack was primarily targetting Hezbollah's military operatives. In my view this negates your allegation that it was indiscriminate. Minimising civilian casualties is particularly difficult when, like Hamas, Hezbollah is embedded (by choice) in the civilian population.

- Finally, it's true that (again like Hamas, and indeed the Mafia) Hezbollah also conducts some 'civilian' social and political activities. Hezbollah itself does not recognise a distinction between its military and political wings.

Please don't interpret the above as suggesting that I am in any way indifferent to civilian suffering on any side.

Jonathan

Setting off a bomb attack in a busy public place is a terrorist attack regardless of whether you agree with the terrorists or not.

I am genuinely struggling to think of any war that didn’t involve explosions in public places. If you are adopting a pacifist stance that’s fine, but if you accept the right of Israel (like any other country) to defend itself against attacks then how do you suggest they do so?

Neither Hezbollah nor Hamas terrorists separate themselves from the civilian populations they claim to represent; in fact they deliberately do the opposite. In the circumstances the proportion of civilian casualities is surprisingly low, at least in Lebanon.

And to brand Israel’s actions as terrorism is unwarranted and frankly offensive, as there is nothing to suggest they were intended to strike fear into the general population of Lebanon (unlike the actions of those indiscriminately attacking Israel). Did you watch the news today? Can you really not see the difference between the two sides?

Look man, the last time we did this you had a massive strop because I don’t agree that Israel’s violence is necessary or justified.

I’m happy to continue but is there a point?

Unfortunately it seems not, particularly that we now seem to have descended into personal comments.

Like I say, happy to continue the discussion (maybe not in this thread) but I’ve had too many run ins with zionists that end up with me being accused of being a terrorist sympathiser because I don’t think the IDF are the only group in the middle east with “a right to defend itself” to keep repeating myself.

So you think Hamas and Hezbollah were acting in self-defence?

^This please, Ukraine and the quagmire of the Middle East have next to nothing in common.

Bringing things back to Ukraine for a moment... this election thing..

I'm not normally an advocate of postponing democracy but in this instance, you can see Zelensky's rationale. Given what we know about Putin's fixing elections, he's right to be wary.

And if he agrees to an election one of two things will happen:

Either

a. Russia will fix things and install their puppet, leading to the entire nation being taken

or

b. Zalensky will win but Putin will claim he fixed the election, Trump will agree and call him a despot. They will then switch the narrative from "Invasion" to "liberation"

EDIT - being discussed on the Twitter thread...

Ah yes. Bringing it over here 'cos it's more relevant here than the twitter thread:

Sundayjumper wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2025 8:58 pm You quite obviously can’t hold an election when there are (estimates vary slightly) 7 million citizens overseas as refugees and 4 million displaced internally. Let alone the impossibility of holding elections in the territories occupied by your enemy.

And even then, if there was an election, it would be chock full of Russian interference just like in America.

When was the last time Russia had a free election? Have they ever had one?

I'd say Never and No...

I went back through the wiki and the first “democratic election” was in 91 after the soviet collapse. Widely accepted to be fixed but celebrated anyway as a step forward .

Like cheering on your alky pal because he has cider instead of vodka for breakfast.

ZedLeg wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:45 am When was the last time Russia had a free election? Have they ever had one?

Not really. But the hypocrisy of demanding an election in Ukraine while keeping silent about who invaded them and whether that country's leader is legitimately elected, and indeed whether that country rigged your own election, is now normal policy.

Headline yesterday: "US objects to phrase ‘Russian aggression’ in G7 statement on Ukraine"

https://www.ft.com/content/73809e7a-a77 ... a329d6a45d

If you apply the same logic, maybe we could take back our former American colony then? If we send our military in we are neither aggressive, invading or starting a war. It’ll be americas fault for not surrendering

I’d get a survey done first, place seems like a money pit tbh.

Saw an interesting post on The Lotus Forum, so thought I'd share.

Comment from OP : "Well over half the aid from America is actually spent in America with American arms companies so the cash never gets to Ukraine, just the bullets, guns, missiles, etc. So you could argue that that American aid has actually been keeping Americans in jobs, and making Americans who own the defence companies richer."



Note:
The key isn't visible in the above image, but you can see via the Original Statista Link Here, that the categorisation is
Blue = Financial
Black = Humanitatian
Grey = Military

So the US aid splits as €46.6B financial, €3.42B Humanitatian, and €64.13B Military.

Love Macron correcting the orange chump

A lot of the military aid was donations of existing stock, not necessarily newly manufactured, and gets reported at cost not market value (e.g. reported value of a donated humvee is the price of a new one, not what it would sell for at a disposal auction). And further - exploding stuff usually has a shelf life and giving it away for free can actually be cheaper than paying to decommission & safely dispose of it at home. So some of this generosity is actually a big saving