Hezbollah’s Exploding Electronics

[Arctish]

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah have apologists defending their killings while Israel has numerous apologists defending the magnitudes more deaths and harm to noncombatants.

Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers.

When you say there are marches "with banners within" defending Hamas and Hezbollah, do you mean there are a few random banners defending Hamas and Hezbollah among a larger number bearing other messages, or that the majority of banners express explicit pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah sentiments?

Unfortanuturaely the vast majority are the generic pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbelloah, anti-Jew/Israel ones. There are a few anti-war stalwarts amongst them but drowned in the torrent.

Interesting.

It's the complete opposite here. Anti-war, support for the Two State solution, calling for universities to divest from the arms industry, calling for an immediate ceasefire and return of the hostages, etc., are the predominant messages in the US. There are some pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah signs and graffiti but it's not much when compared to the number of signs, flyers, messages, etc. calling for justice and upholding human rights.

I wonder if what you have over there is like what we had in the 1960s, where so much attention was paid to the violent protests of a few that peaceful protests were completely overshadowed despite being much larger and much more frequent.

 

[Politesse]

I think about war very differently, it seems, from most other people. To me, asking "A war has begun, whose fault is it?" is about as useful and meaningful as seeing that a hurricane is bearing down on the town and demanding to know whose fault it is that global warming happened. War is one of the worst ills of this world, and its victims are almost never its perpetrators. A general thinks, "if we just kill enough of their people, they'll surrender!" A panicking soldier looking down the barrel at a panicking kid on the other side may well shoot, a kid on a laptop linked to a bomb is even more likely to press the button and blow it, but they won't resolve an international conflict by doing either of those things. That will be resolved, when and if it is, over a negotiating table or in some damned back room, by a coven rich assholes who never do learn the real costs of their game.

 

[bilby]

Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers.

Here in Brisbane, the largest such march had a few hundred participants, in a location with about three million people who could easily have attended had they so desired.

There are "substantial numbers" of people who support pretty much anything; But if marching for something is less popular on a sunny weekend afternoon than is watching the Brisbane Broncos playing a dead rubber on a rainy Thursday night, it can't really be popular enough that the rest of us need worry about it.

How many phone booths were needed to hold a Bris. Broncos dead rubber match crowd on a rainy Thu. night? Being generous they would just fill one of the buses you drive Bibly.

The smallest ever crowd for a Broncos NRL game at Lang Park (aka Suncorp Stadium) was 5,626 on Thursday, 3 September 2020; They lost 12-25 to Penrith Panthers. https://www.rugbyleagueproject.org/...bane-broncos-vs-penrith-panthers/summary.html

It didn't rain in Brisbane that day, but there were some showers about.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/month/qld/archive/202009.brisbane.shtml

The Broncos were firmly at the bottom of the ladder and finished the season with the wooden spoon; Penrith were top, and won the minor premiership, so it was very much a dead rubber, and the home fans anticipated a loss (which they got).

It was also during the tail end of COVID lock-down; The 2020 season was suspended for part of the year, and crowds were prohibited or severely restricted for some of the rest.

The only smaller crowd for a Broncos game of any kind was 4,605, at a pre-season game played on the Sunshine Coast on 12 February 2023 against the Gold Coast Titans.

 

[Rhea]

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah have apologists defending their killings while Israel has numerous apologists defending the magnitudes more deaths and harm to noncombatants.

Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers.

When you say there are marches "with banners within" defending Hamas and Hezbollah, do you mean there are a few random banners defending Hamas and Hezbollah among a larger number bearing other messages, or that the majority of banners express explicit pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah sentiments?

Unfortanuturaely the vast majority are the generic pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbelloah, anti-Jew/Israel ones. There are a few anti-war stalwarts amongst them but drowned in the torrent.

Tigers, is this something that you can link to news stories? Or did you personally gather this information by individually attending multiple events in order to form this conclusion?

In other words, what data led you to believe that you know that that

• Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers
  • And that
• The “vast majority are the generic pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbelloah, anti-Jew/Israel ones. There are a few anti-war stalwarts amongst them but drowned in the torrent”

What data exactly, made you confident in saying “vast majority” and “Every Sunday” in “many cities”

 

[Derec]

I think about war very differently, it seems, from most other people. To me, asking "A war has begun, whose fault is it?" is about as useful and meaningful as seeing that a hurricane is bearing down on the town and demanding to know whose fault it is that global warming happened.

World War II has begun. Do you not think that it is important that Germany and Japan started it?

War is one of the worst ills of this world, and its victims are almost never its perpetrators.

Nevertheless, it is an important distinction between the side who started a war of aggression (in this case Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or Russia in the case of the war between Russia and Ukraine) and the side that is defending itself from said aggression (Israel|Ukraine).

 

[Derec]

It's the complete opposite here. Anti-war, support for the Two State solution, calling for universities to divest from the arms industry, calling for an immediate ceasefire and return of the hostages, etc., are the predominant messages in the US.

Not so. Even from the beginning, the "ceasefire now" messages were targeting Israel defending itself, they were not general anti-war messages. Hostages were not mentioned. "Divestment" calls were for divestment from Israel (aka "Kauft nicht bei Juden").
This is a photo from a Gaza protest in NYC on 10/8, one day after the 10/7 massacre.

Nothing about the evils of Hamas, nothing about hostages. Instead a message tacitly supporting terrorism ("by any means necessary"), call to free not innocent hostages but terrorists imprisoned in Israel (called "political prisoners") and also some nonsense about "decolonization". Anti-Israel crowd sees Israel as a "colonial" project (never mind that the Arabs colonized the land and even use the colonial name for themselves since they do not have an indigenous one) which means that this sign is a call to destroy Israel.
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:

"Stand with Palestinian Resistance" (aka Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.).

There are some pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah signs and graffiti but it's not much when compared to the number of signs, flyers, messages, etc. calling for justice and upholding human rights.

Show me all those signs calling for justice and upholding human rights. Where are they?

 

[Politesse]

World War II has begun. Do you not think that it is important that Germany and Japan started it?

Important? To a historian, perhaps. Assigning blame changes nothing about the war.

 

[Derec]

I assume that is a "No u r" childish response rather than a tacit recognition of reading comprehension issues on your part.

It's not childish when you fail to realize the glaring failures of comprehension on your part.

Why? Because you say so? Killing noncombatants is wrong. That is a simple declarative statement of morality. You can disagree with it or not.

This attitude makes defending oneself from a war of aggression and/or from terrorism impossible. I certainly must disagree with this kind of suicidal pacifism.

Not only is that non-responsive to my point, it is claim without evidence.

Wrong on both counts. It is responsive, and it is backed by evidence.

It is. Why are your bringing it up in this discussion? Nothing I have written suggests that to any rational observer.

You were lamenting the fact that Palestinian terrorists do not kill enough Jews even though they are targeting civilians.

No, it is not bias. Inadvertent implies to me that the IDF cares whether or not they also injure, maim or kill civilians. It is pretty clear that is not true given that they have target kill ratios. I think they'd prefer to not injure, maim or kill a very large number of civilians relative to their targets but, in the end, it really doesn't matter much to them.

They do care to not harm more civilians than necessary. Often in the past they have called off airstrikes because too many civilians are about. And "roof-knocking" is something IDF has practiced extensively.
But possibility of civilian casualties will not deter them from hitting a target of sufficient significance (such as Ibrahim Aqil). And after 10/7 the calculus has shifted as well, with IDF more willing to strike. Rules of engagement were more restricted before 10/7. Another thing to blame Hamas for.

As an aside, I suspect that if some Islamic terrorist group pulled off a similar "coup" with the IDF that also injured. maimed or killed some noncombatants, the usual suspects would be screaming about those bloody inhuman terrorists.

False equivalence. First of all, terrorists would be targeting noncombatants. Second, do you think Al Qaeda or ISIS would be justified in targeting Biden or the Joint Chiefs because we have been targeting their leaders? Or is your false equivalence limited to just Israel?

 

[Derec]

Important? To a historian, perhaps. Assigning blame changes nothing about the war.

It doesn't?

 

[bilby]

World War II has begun. Do you not think that it is important that Germany and Japan started it?

World War II wasn't really a war, it was a collection of wars that had some overlap.

Insofar as it was a war, Japan started it in 1937, with the Marco Polo Bridge incident, more than two years before the German invasion of Poland.

It's a bit odd to assert that Getmany started a war that had been ongoing for two years when they are alleged to have started it.

Of course, one could argue that the seeds of war with Germany were sown with their annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938 (still after WWII had started), or even with the remilitarisation of the Rhineland in 1936 (thereby pre-dating the second Sino-Japanese War; But then one would, for consistency, need to backdate the start of WWII to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931...).

So, not only is it unimportant who started WWII, but it's also clear that it wasn't Germany.

Germany certainly started the European Theatre War of 1939-40; They won that war, with the fall of France and the evacuation of British forces from mainland Europe.

Their victory was short lived, but owed nothing to the question of who started the war, which was followed in 1943/44 with invasions by Britain and the USA of Italy and France, respectively, starting European Theatre War III (ETW II had been started by Germany in 1941, when they attacked the USSR).

Taking just the 1939-45 conflicts in the European Theatre as "a war", the war started with an Anglo-French demand to restore Polish sovereignty, and ended with Poland occupied by one of the hostile nations that had invaded at the beginning of the war. So while Germany did lose, it's far from clear that their opponents of 1939 won.

In summary, WWII was a huge mess, and the question of who started it and why was barely relevant to its ending and consequences.

So, no. It wasn't important who started it; Only who finished it.

 

[Arctish]

It's the complete opposite here. Anti-war, support for the Two State solution, calling for universities to divest from the arms industry, calling for an immediate ceasefire and return of the hostages, etc., are the predominant messages in the US.

Not so. Even from the beginning, the "ceasefire now" messages were targeting Israel defending itself, they were not general anti-war messages. Hostages were not mentioned. "Divestment" calls were for divestment from Israel (aka "Kauft nicht bei Juden").
This is a photo from a Gaza protest in NYC on 10/8, one day after the 10/7 massacre.
View attachment 47857
Nothing about the evils of Hamas, nothing about hostages. Instead a message tacitly supporting terrorism ("by any means necessary"), call to free not innocent hostages but terrorists imprisoned in Israel (called "political prisoners") and also some nonsense about "decolonization". Anti-Israel crowd sees Israel as a "colonial" project (never mind that the Arabs colonized the land and even use the colonial name for themselves since they do not have an indigenous one) which means that this sign is a call to destroy Israel.
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:

"Stand with Palestinian Resistance" (aka Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.).

There are some pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah signs and graffiti but it's not much when compared to the number of signs, flyers, messages, etc. calling for justice and upholding human rights.

Show me all those signs calling for justice and upholding human rights. Where are they?

If you skew the meaning of "justice" and "human rights" to fit some eccentric definition no one else uses, then the only calls for justice and upholding human rights you will acknowledge are your own. And if you say that apartheid is justice and ethnic cleansing is upholding human rights, then you can claim that Netanyahu, Smotrich, Ben Gvir, and their allies are standing on the moral high ground while Jews for Peace and Médecins Sans Frontières are stanning for genocide.

Of course, that only works in Alice's Wonderland, not irl where words have meanings everyone shares.

 

[TomC]

World War II has begun. Do you not think that it is important that Germany and Japan started it?

Important? To a historian, perhaps. Assigning blame changes nothing about the war.

Nonsense.

Figuring out why something happened, and assigning blame to the perps, gives us (who want to prevent another repetition) some traction.

But as long as "everyone does it" remains your attitude towards war, everyone will keep doing it.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

It's the complete opposite here. Anti-war, support for the Two State solution, calling for universities to divest from the arms industry, calling for an immediate ceasefire and return of the hostages, etc., are the predominant messages in the US.

Not so. Even from the beginning, the "ceasefire now" messages were targeting Israel defending itself, they were not general anti-war messages. Hostages were not mentioned. "Divestment" calls were for divestment from Israel (aka "Kauft nicht bei Juden").
This is a photo from a Gaza protest in NYC on 10/8, one day after the 10/7 massacre.
View attachment 47857
Nothing about the evils of Hamas, nothing about hostages. Instead a message tacitly supporting terrorism ("by any means necessary"), call to free not innocent hostages but terrorists imprisoned in Israel (called "political prisoners") and also some nonsense about "decolonization". Anti-Israel crowd sees Israel as a "colonial" project (never mind that the Arabs colonized the land and even use the colonial name for themselves since they do not have an indigenous one) which means that this sign is a call to destroy Israel.
Another photo from the 10/8 protest:

"Stand with Palestinian Resistance" (aka Hamas, Islamic Jihad etc.).

There are some pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah signs and graffiti but it's not much when compared to the number of signs, flyers, messages, etc. calling for justice and upholding human rights.

Show me all those signs calling for justice and upholding human rights. Where are they?

You could transplant those images to Australia and would look identical, except for the skyscrapers.

 

[Tigers!]

Neither Hamas nor Hezbollah have apologists defending their killings while Israel has numerous apologists defending the magnitudes more deaths and harm to noncombatants.

Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers.

When you say there are marches "with banners within" defending Hamas and Hezbollah, do you mean there are a few random banners defending Hamas and Hezbollah among a larger number bearing other messages, or that the majority of banners express explicit pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah sentiments?

Unfortanuturaely the vast majority are the generic pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbelloah, anti-Jew/Israel ones. There are a few anti-war stalwarts amongst them but drowned in the torrent.

Tigers, is this something that you can link to news stories? Or did you personally gather this information by individually attending multiple events in order to form this conclusion?

In other words, what data led you to believe that you know that that

• Every Sunday since late Oct. 2023 there have been street marches in major Aust. capital cities with banners within defending Hamas in particular but also Hezbollah. The apologoists exist in substantial numbers
  • And that

This organisation (amongst many others) update their website every week with events (re. protests, marches etc.) happening next weekend or so.

• The “vast majority are the generic pro-Hamas, pro-Hezbelloah, anti-Jew/Israel ones. There are a few anti-war stalwarts amongst them but drowned in the torrent”

What data exactly, made you confident in saying “vast majority” and “Every Sunday” in “many cities”

See above

 

[laughing dog]

I assume that is a "No u r" childish response rather than a tacit recognition of reading comprehension issues on your part.

It's not childish when you fail to realize the glaring failures of comprehension on your part.

Why? Because you say so? Killing noncombatants is wrong. That is a simple declarative statement of morality. You can disagree with it or not.

This attitude makes defending oneself from a war of aggression and/or from terrorism impossible. I certainly must disagree with this kind of suicidal pacifism.

Pure bosh. It does no such thing. It means sometimes defending oneself requires doing wrong.

Not only is that non-responsive to my point, it is claim without evidence.

Wrong on both counts. It is responsive, and it is backed by evidence.

More pure bosh. It does not rebut the fact that the IDF injures, maims and kills way more noncombatants than Islamic terrorists. And there is no way you can have actual evidence that IDF actions reduce the frequency of terrorist attacks because you cannot possibly have data on planned attacks that are deterred and you ignore the possibility that IDF actions may induce future attacks.

You may believe that the IDF is successful in reducing the frequency of terrorist attacks, and you may have rational reasons for doing so, but you cannot have actual evidence to that effect.

You were lamenting the fact that Palestinian terrorists do not kill enough Jews even though they are targeting civilians.

Please point to my words that cause you to draw such a blatantly false and vicious slander.

They do care to not harm more civilians than necessary. Often in the past they have called off airstrikes because too many civilians are about. And "roof-knocking" is something IDF has practiced extensively.
But possibility of civilian casualties will not deter them from hitting a target of sufficient significance (such as Ibrahim Aqil). And after 10/7 the calculus has shifted as well, with IDF more willing to strike. Rules of engagement were more restricted before 10/7. Another thing to blame Hamas for.

Your argument is circular. You accept as "necessary" the outcome.

As an aside, I suspect that if some Islamic terrorist group pulled off a similar "coup" with the IDF that also injured. maimed or killed some noncombatants, the usual suspects would be screaming about those bloody inhuman terrorists.

False equivalence. First of all, terrorists would be targeting noncombatants. Second, do you think Al Qaeda or ISIS would be justified in targeting Biden or the Joint Chiefs because we have been targeting their leaders? Or is your false equivalence limited to just Israel?

. A similar coup would not be targeting noncombatants, so there is no false equivalence. Second, I did not say anyone was justified. Your evasion exposes your double standard.

 

[Politesse]

But as long as "everyone does it" remains your attitude towards war, everyone will keep doing it.

That is not my attitude toward war, as I have just recently stated. War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy, and it is a tragedy whenever it occurs.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy,

Why do people keep offering this up?

Human conflict is the worst consequence of the failure of __________.

The failure of diplomacy is the worst consequence of the failure of __________.

Please fill in the blanks.

 

[repoman]

I think about war very differently, it seems, from most other people. To me, asking "A war has begun, whose fault is it?" is about as useful and meaningful as seeing that a hurricane is bearing down on the town and demanding to know whose fault it is that global warming happened. War is one of the worst ills of this world, and its victims are almost never its perpetrators. A general thinks, "if we just kill enough of their people, they'll surrender!" A panicking soldier looking down the barrel at a panicking kid on the other side may well shoot, a kid on a laptop linked to a bomb is even more likely to press the button and blow it, but they won't resolve an international conflict by doing either of those things. That will be resolved, when and if it is, over a negotiating table or in some damned back room, by a coven rich assholes who never do learn the real costs of their game.

Reminds me of the line from a Genesis song:

"There's no-one left alive, must be a draw"
So the Blackcap Barons toss a coin to settle the score

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think about war very differently, it seems, from most other people. To me, asking "A war has begun, whose fault is it?" is about as useful and meaningful as seeing that a hurricane is bearing down on the town and demanding to know whose fault it is that global warming happened.

World War II has begun. Do you not think that it is important that Germany and Japan started it?

It certainly isn't irrelevant. But using WWII to calibrate one's moral compass is not particularly wise.

In the end, this is about the general well being of all involved. One could get a little more targeted and just say about the well being of the Israelis. What is being gained with these latest attacks? They went from new-age espionage... to bombs and missiles again. Merely weakening Hezbollah, never reaching a viable victory.

War is one of the worst ills of this world, and its victims are almost never its perpetrators.

Nevertheless, it is an important distinction between the side who started a war of aggression (in this case Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or Russia in the case of the war between Russia and Ukraine) and the side that is defending itself from said aggression (Israel|Ukraine).

But is the defense working? Just because someone has the right to defend themselves, that doesn't mean the actions taken are defaulted as moral and/or effective.

 

[Politesse]

War is the worst consequence of the failure of diplomacy,

Why do people keep offering this up?

Human conflict is the worst consequence of the failure of __________.

The failure of diplomacy is the worst consequence of the failure of __________.

Please fill in the blanks.

Civil society; diplomatic institutions. I'm not seeing what's confusing about this? Like yeah dude, we are a social species and social interaction is necessary to avoid social malfunction. It's not that complicated. Presuming the purpose of social structures is some form of equilibrium, if someone is skinning their neighbor's kids, something has gone awry.