Hezbollah terrorists were in the market for some pagers... Israel says here you go!

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, Rebound said:

Here is one reason: The terrorists are 100% civilians. Assuming you were in the Army, then you know all about the uniform. It’s a violation of the Geneva Convention for a combatant to identify or dress as a civilian. 
 

Second is they ordered 1,000 pagers and one of the terrorists steals a few or they have some extras and give them or sell them.  

Terrorist are not declared combatants, nor are they covered by the protections of the Geneva conventions...according to the US supreme court, International law and everything that come out of Gitmo...I think what your thinking of is if a civilian picks up a weapon and decides to fight then it is legal to target them with weapons of war while he has in his hands a weapon..He may be arrested later but not targeted with lethal force,unless he resists... each NATO country has it's own interpretation of those laws......

Your right every combatant needs to wear some sort of identification like an armband, uniform, something...not doing so is a war crime...

But anyone that is a terrorist or works for a terrorist group is a target for life....and could have a kill or capture order attached to their name. Every nation has there own list of names...but the names on the top are pretty much the same on everyone's list.  

Thats on the guy that stole them...remember collateral damage is acceptable according to the Geneva convention, inter national laws and most western countries laws...there are caveats put in place to ensure "almost" everything with in reason was done to limit these deaths...

Again i ask why in todays world would anyone want a pager, when there is a cell phone that does everything and much more...unless your doing something sketchy like dealing drugs or doing something terrorist's do...They can still be tracked/ blocked  it may be a little harder, but any electric device can be tracked...

[Rebound]

3 hours ago, Army Guy said:

Terrorist are not declared combatants, nor are they covered by the protections of the Geneva conventions...according to the US supreme court, International law and everything that come out of Gitmo...I think what your thinking of is if a civilian picks up a weapon and decides to fight then it is legal to target them with weapons of war while he has in his hands a weapon..He may be arrested later but not targeted with lethal force,unless he resists... each NATO country has it's own interpretation of those laws......

Your right every combatant needs to wear some sort of identification like an armband, uniform, something...not doing so is a war crime...

But anyone that is a terrorist or works for a terrorist group is a target for life....and could have a kill or capture order attached to their name. Every nation has there own list of names...but the names on the top are pretty much the same on everyone's list.  

Thats on the guy that stole them...remember collateral damage is acceptable according to the Geneva convention, inter national laws and most western countries laws...there are caveats put in place to ensure "almost" everything with in reason was done to limit these deaths...

Again i ask why in todays world would anyone want a pager, when there is a cell phone that does everything and much more...unless your doing something sketchy like dealing drugs or doing something terrorist's do...They can still be tracked/ blocked  it may be a little harder, but any electric device can be tracked...

I think the terrorists knew that Israel had hacked iPhones and they could even work with Google and Apple to intercept messages over their networks.  Pagers send only codes, so they are potentially more secure.  

Edited September 21, 2024 by Rebound

[User]

On 9/20/2024 at 8:07 PM, CdnFox said:

So they set up an entirely separate pager company, Actually sold pagers to other people and somehow managed to win the contract to supply Hezbollah  and all of its various organizations with pagers. Then as they bought pagers they gave them the 'splodey ones to issue.  

Like honestly they actually set up an Acme pager company to do this. It is insanely complicated, it is  Insanely brilliant that they were able to pull it off And this makes 4D chess look like checkers.

Wow... that is pretty targeted and not so random as you kept trying to argue. 

 

[Army Guy]

19 hours ago, Rebound said:

I think the terrorists knew that Israel had hacked iPhones and they could even work with Google and Apple to intercept messages over their networks.  Pagers send only codes, so they are potentially more secure.  

Yes cell phones are much easier to track, and you don't need apple or google permission to do it...In Afghanistan Canada had the ability to listen to any cell phone conversation within a certain range, track not only the caller but the receiver as well all while on the move,with exact GPS coordinates and conversation details...  the same vehicle could also block all cell phone traffic, and whole frequencies ranges such as garage door openers, etc...as they were used to set off IED's that was more than 15 years ago, and that was Canada, i can not imagine what the US forces had access to then and now...Any electronic device can be tracked, located and listened to...Israel has a massive intelligence community might not be on the same level as the US but it is pretty close...

[User]

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

That's just nonsense.   I'm using aboslute language because i'm arguing things aren't absolute and they can't be sure? 

And refuing something isn't just saying "Nuh HUH"  every time you're faced with a fact you don't like. 

Yeah, you are the one saying they have to be sure... that is absolutist language. I am the one pointing out nothing is for sure, it is only degrees of certainty and risk. 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

I had no idea you were this stupid. I didn't compare anything to anything.

OK great, you were never comparing this to carpet bombing and I have no dumb comparisons to argue against. 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

And there is nothing targeted about randomly sewing thousands of bombs around a civilian population at a time of peace and blowing them up. That couldn't be less targeted

It was not random. The people they were issued to were targeted. 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

Hezbollah runs hospitals. Hezbollah runs fire departments and other Civic services.

Here we go again... where you pretend the folks who are purchasing pagers to avoid Israeli signals intelligence are just normal civilians and not terrorists or militant combatants... 
 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

We're not talking about people who were injured when someone else's pager went off, we're talking about people who are injured or killed when the pager that was given to them which was filled with explosives by the Israelis presumably blew up

That is by definition targeting civilians

So, your big argument now is that the Hezbollah leadership was issuing the pagers they ordered to avoid Israeli signals intelligence was to kids?

Yeah right... of course, they just wanted to be able to page their kids at school to make sure they were going to be home for dinner. 

*eye roll*
 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

I didn't advocate for anything. I said if you are going to Wage of war then declare war.

So... you are advocating for them to declare war... LOL

 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

Barely hurting? They're dead. Civilian workers and children are dead. They "barely hurt" them to death. You're trying to claim that killing children and healthcare workers is a victory?

You are conflating your claim of casualties with the few who were killed. The vast majority of those harmed were precisely the folks being targeted. 

Yes, this is a clear victory. 

 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

Is this the part where you lie about me advocating for anything and try to explain how targeting children is a good thing again

The only lie here is you claiming children were targeted. 

Yes, you continue to advocate for Israel to declare war instead... 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

We both know that's a lie. And it's a lie that you feel the need to tell because you know you're in the wrong. They literally put thousands of pounds worth of bombs all over Lebanon and blew them up.

And according to you if they did drop 2,000 lb bombs all over Lebanon as long as they hit a few Hezbollah it was totally worth it no matter how many civilians they killed

Yes, they put a tiny amount of explosives with the people they intended of blowing up instead of dropping larger amounts of explosives all over Lebanon that would certainly have killed far more. 

On 9/20/2024 at 1:34 PM, CdnFox said:

You just don't want Israel to be responsible for it by declaring a war and having to live within the rules of it

Still waiting for you to ever explain by what rule or law you are insisting Israel must declare war by... let me know when you feel like providing that. I am tired of asking for it. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, User said:

Wow... that is pretty targeted and not so random as you kept trying to argue. 

 

No it isn't. Selling pagers to a person who will then distribute it to people and you don't know who the people are is not targeted. 

[User]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

No it isn't. Selling pagers to a person who will then distribute it to people and you don't know who the people are is not targeted. 

Don't know who... yeah right. 

You know why they are buying pagers, you know who is buying them, you know who they are going to. You just outlined yourself how much they did to make this work. 

That is targeted. 

This was not some random Radio Shack shipment that went to the general public. 

[CdnFox]

32 minutes ago, User said:

Yeah, you are the one saying they have to be sure... that is absolutist language. I am the one pointing out nothing is for sure, it is only degrees of certainty and risk. 

OK great, you were never comparing this to carpet bombing and I have no dumb comparisons to argue against. 

It was not random. The people they were issued to were targeted. 

Here we go again... where you pretend the folks who are purchasing pagers to avoid Israeli signals intelligence are just normal civilians and not terrorists or militant combatants... 
 

So, your big argument now is that the Hezbollah leadership was issuing the pagers they ordered to avoid Israeli signals intelligence was to kids?

Yeah right... of course, they just wanted to be able to page their kids at school to make sure they were going to be home for dinner. 

*eye roll*
 

So... you are advocating for them to declare war... LOL

 

You are conflating your claim of casualties with the few who were killed. The vast majority of those harmed were precisely the folks being targeted. 

Yes, this is a clear victory. 

 

The only lie here is you claiming children were targeted. 

Yes, you continue to advocate for Israel to declare war instead... 

Yes, they put a tiny amount of explosives with the people they intended of blowing up instead of dropping larger amounts of explosives all over Lebanon that would certainly have killed far more. 

Still waiting for you to ever explain by what rule or law you are insisting Israel must declare war by... let me know when you feel like providing that. I am tired of asking for it. 

Well that was a pretty serious pack of bullshit wasn't it. 

I never said anything about having to be sure, so that's a lie

Considering that the people that were targeted were not all military or combatants it definitely was not "targeting" Terrorist or military forces, it's pretty random. 

And i've proven that not all of hezbolla is military and that hospitals and first responders use pagers SAME AS NORTH AMERICA  and in fact looks like a fair number of the people injured were in fact medical personnel. 

My "big argument" now is that israel didn't know WHO specifically the pagers were issued to and a lot of non combatants and kids are dead and injured.  ANd that's a fact. 

 

The rest  is just you lying more.  Every single point you made was a lie mostly involving things i never said.  Claiming i advocated for war is a blatant lie , i said declare a war if you're going to fight a war and dont' fight a war if you won't. 

You claim i said they targeted children, i never said anything of the kind, i said it was not a targeted strike and kids got killed.   

You claim i said you have to be sure, that is a lie. I said there is a legal requirement ot minimize non combatant casualties, you can't just carpet bomb a whole city to get one terrorist for example. 

Oh  and i notice that they're now dropping large amounts of bombs all over lebanon.. Guess what.  There's FEWER civillian casualties. 

There's no point discussing this with you if all you're going to do is lie.  You obviously know you're in the wrong.  

Here's a hint in life kiddo - i f you have to lie constantly to make your point, you probably don't have a very good point. 

 

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, User said:

Don't know who... yeah right. 

that's your response your entire logical argument is Derp...er... yeah right!!!

I suppose that's one way to admit you're a Brainless dolt without actually admitting it  

It wasn't targeted. We know that. We can tell because a very large percentage of people that were issued the  pagers and who got blown up or not combatants. 

They're actually doing better with their bomb strikes.

Oopsie!! See this is what happens when you base your opinion on wise instead of facts or reason.

[CdnFox]

24 minutes ago, User said:

Don't know who... yeah right. 

You know why they are buying pagers, you know who is buying them, you know who they are going to. You just outlined yourself how much they did to make this work. 

That is targeted. 

This was not some random Radio Shack shipment that went to the general public. 

Ruh Roe little guy. 

Lama Fakih, a director of the Human Rights Watch, said that the explosions would constitute an indiscriminate attack if the IDF had no way of accurately determining the location of the explosive devices, since there would be no distinction between civilians and military targets. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk said that the attacks violated international human rights since the IDF did not have knowledge regarding the users of the devices or their location and surroundings during the explosions.^[592]

Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present) - Wikipedia

Looks like the un and human rights groups are noting it's not a 'targeted'  attack at all and are considering war crime charges,  followed by:

On 22 September, Israeli President Isaac Herzog denied any Israeli involvement in the pager explosions.^[565]

^{Gee, if it was all above board and perfectly legitimate and targeted I wonder why Israel would deny any involvement in it? Why it's almost as if they know that it might not be entirely legal under international law}

[User]

28 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I never said anything about having to be sure, so that's a lie

Sigh... why do folks like you have to act this way? There is almost no point in trying to discuss anything with someone like you who will just deny you said what you have clearly said. 

Beyond the fact that you literally have said this, your arguments have also repeatedly insisted upon it many times. 

" There's currently no declaration of war, there's no way to know whether or not that pager might be in the possession of a child or something like that"
...

"You don't know where those pagers are going to end up. You can't be sure that you're taking out legit targets. "

...

"But there's no guarantee that would happen or that some kid wouldn't happen to have daddy's pager when it went off or that it didn't go off somewhere like a gas station or on a plane or while the guy was driving a truck leading to civilian casualties without any announcement or declaration. "
...

"While they were aiming for hezbolla the fact is there was a lot of randomness to the attack, others were hurt or killed including  a small boy, and people just going about their lives would have been at risk of death. "
...
"They didn't know who the pagers would be issued to for sure, and they didn't know that whomever they issued them to would be the ones holding them when they went off...and they coudln't be sure when they went off the person wasn't doing something that would put other people at risk.  "
...
"They did not know whose pocket that pager was in when it blew up. They did not know that it was in the pocket of a Hezbollah supporter. There isn't even any evidence that all of the people that were blown up were Hezbollah supporters."
...
"you don't actually need me to explain what for sure means do you? They didn't know for certainty who would wind up with these pagers"
...
"But there is no way they could know that that would be the only people that would get them or use them, or with certainty that that's who they would be given to. "
...
" It is painfully obvious that they could not have known with certainty who the end recipients would be, or that they would all be Hezbollah."
...
"But this is more random.  You don't know where those pagers are going to end up. You can't be sure that you're taking out legit targets. "
...
"That's just nonsense.   I'm using aboslute language because i'm arguing things aren't absolute and they can't be sure? "


 

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, User said:

Sigh... why do folks like you have to act this way?

This is how adults always act with children. We correct your errors and discipline your bad behavior.

And no I never said that. And you know that. But you can't argue with what I did say so you feel compelled to twist what I said into something else that you feel you can argue with.

Like I said, if you have to lie to make your point you haven't got a very good point

You claim I said you have to be sure. Let's look at some of your examples

" There's currently no declaration of war, there's no way to know whether or not that pager might be in the possession of a child or something like that"

Does that say you have to be sure? No it doesn't. It says you can't be sure which means it's not targeted Or at least not sufficiently targeted

41 minutes ago, User said:

You don't know where those pagers are going to end up. You can't be sure that you're taking out legit targets. "

Does that say you have to be sure? No. It says you can't be sure

The rest are all like that.

So your whole point is a lie. My point was that it wasn't targeted or at least not very well targeted. And that is true.

But you had to twist it and to me trying to make some sort of statement that There has to be absolute certainty for the like.

As I have said many many times, you are expected to take reasonable steps to ensure that there are no unnecessary civilian casualties. That's not the same as no civilian casualties, but you are expected to keep it to a minimum. This was a largely untargeted attack where you couldn't know who received the pagers or where they would be detonated or what those people would be doing when the destination occurred. That is not taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties. And as it turns out there were many civilian casualties.

If all you bring to the table is lies about what I said then you are essentially admitting that you know you are wrong. Do better.

[User]

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Does that say you have to be sure? No it doesn't. It says you can't be sure which means it's not targeted Or at least not sufficiently targeted

Yes, if you repeatedly argue that they are not sure, your standard here is that they have to be sure. The fact that you keep playing dumb like this doesn't change that. 

20 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Does that say you have to be sure? No. It says you can't be sure

And if you are here arguing these attacks were wrong because they can't be sure... then your standard is that they must be sure. 

How are you this dumb or dishonest?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

that's your response your entire logical argument is Derp...er... yeah right!!!

Except, you ignored the whole part where I went on to support my point here... 

[User]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Ruh Roe little guy. 

LOL, not interested in quoting organizations that have routinely been biased against Israel and were already going after them absurdly for war crimes and whatnot. 

Feel free to make your own arguments or not. 

 

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, if you repeatedly argue that they are not sure, your standard here is that they have to be sure. The fact that you keep playing dumb like this doesn't change that. 

 

Show one case of me actually saying they have to be sure. I never did. I never have. Repeating the LIE will not change that.

What I said is there are varying degrees and you are expected to take reasonable precautions to make sure civilians aren't being targeted. In this case they couldn't know who was getting the pagers and that makes it unacceptable. They also didn't know What the people would be doing when the pages were detonated and that's unacceptable. The guy could be flying a plane and crash it killing hundreds. 

You have to take REASONSALBE precautions.  If you're not sure who's getting teh pagers, what they will be doing when they went off, or what the likely civilian casualties are then you can't be said to be 'reasonably' sure of anything. 

If you blow up a building that houses munitions with a targeted strike then you know you're blowing up a munitions plant and what casualties will be associated with that more or less. 

 

So you continue to lie about what i  said. Obvously you're admitting i was right and you've got no argument. 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, User said:

Yes, if you repeatedly argue that they are not sure, your standard here is that they have to be sure. The fact that you keep playing dumb like this doesn't change that. 

 

THat is one of your stupidest comments yet, and it was up against some pretty stiff comptetition. 

I made my position quite clear. You need to be "REASONABLY" sure.  You have to take REASONABLE procautions. You have to MINIMIZE risk. 

If they have ZERO surity that's not reasonable.  That does not mean they have to have ABSOLUTE certainty to be 'reasonable.

Blowing up a single building full of known terrorists is one thing, and if there happen to be civvies involved well, you did what you could to keep it minimal.  Randomly detonating 2500 explosive devices around the city with no idea where it would go off and only a vague hope of who had them being bad guys is NOT reasonable. 

Your argument is "If we can't be sure shes' not pregnant then she must be pregnant'.  It's stupid.  Saying that you have to minimize casualties is not saying you have to be absoltuely sure there won't be any. 

But hey,  lie about what i said and the facts again, maybe if you keep doing that it'll become true

🙄

43 minutes ago, User said:

Except, you ignored the whole part where I went on to support my point here... 

Except you really didn't.

 

[CdnFox]

33 minutes ago, User said:

LOL, not interested in quoting organizations that have routinely been biased against Israel and were already going after them absurdly for war crimes and whatnot. 

Feel free to make your own arguments or not. 

 

"LOL   NOT INTERESTED IN FACTS OR LAW!!!!

- User. 

Well fair enough, no need for you to live in reality. God knows the left doesn't and they get by, why not you?

Just out of curiosity,  is Israel one of those orgs thats "bias against israel"?  As noted they're denying they did it too.  Hmmm. 

 

A few more facts for you to ignore. Some of these spell out the principles involved, and it's obvious that Isreal stepped over a line as far as the law goes. No wonder they're denying it, :

Did Lebanon exploding pagers attack violate international law? : NPR

One particular focus is Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which was added to an international law focused on the use of conventional weapons in 1996. Both Israel and Lebanon have agreed to it.

It prohibits the use of booby traps

 "objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use."

In a statement, Fakih said the use of "an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction." 

 

Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.

The group is designated as a terrorist organization by several nations, including the United States, but many of its members and supporters operate in civilian areas across Lebanon — and some of the explosions left innocent bystanders, including children, injured or dead.

Lebanon pager attack: Did Israel break international law? | Middle East Eye

What principles determine humanitarian law for armed conflict?

International humanitarian law is derived from international conventions, treaties, regulations and legal rulings. It includes the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Conventions and judgements by the International Court of Justice among others.

Part of its role is to impose limits on the suffering caused by armed conflict. From this have emerged several core principles that must be considered by states and other participants in conflict before they take military action.

"Distinction" stipulates that parties in warfare must at all times distinguish between combatants and civilian populations, as well as between military objectives and civilian objects (such as a house or a place of worship). Indiscriminate attacks, which hit civilians and civilian facilities as well as achieve military objectives, are prohibited. 

"Proportionality" prohibits attacks that are expected to cause civilian deaths and injury, or damage to civilian objects, in a way that would be “excessive” in relation to the anticipated military advantage. 

"Military necessity" permits measures that are necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose, namely, to weaken the military capacity of other parties in a conflict. 

Has Israel's pager attack met these principles?

Alonso Gurmendi-Dunkelberg, a researcher at the London School of Economics focused on the international regulation of war, said it would be difficult for Israel to have checked the principles of proportionality, distinction and military necessity before the attack. 

[User]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Show one case of me actually saying they have to be sure. I never did. I never have. Repeating the LIE will not change that.

I just did. I gave you an entire page full of quotes. The only lie is your playing dumb act now. 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

In this case they couldn't know who was getting the pagers and that makes it unacceptable.

So which is it? Did they have to reasonably know or have to know?

You just tried to lie saying you never said they had to be sure and now you are saying they couldn't know, another absolutist position. 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If you're not sure who's getting teh pagers

Holy crap, are you delusional?!

Here you go again, saying they have to be sure in the same post you are claiming you never said this... again. No "reasonable" or "reasonably" here... just "sure"

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

So you continue to lie about what i  said. Obvously you're admitting i was right and you've got no argument. 

You can't even keep your own story straight in the same post. I am not lying about anything. You are entirely delusional. 

 

[User]

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

THat is one of your stupidest comments yet, and it was up against some pretty stiff comptetition. 

I made my position quite clear. You need to be "REASONABLY" sure.  You have to take REASONABLE procautions. You have to MINIMIZE risk. 

Clearly this is not your position as you repeatedly insist on their having to be sure and just did again. 

However, if you are finally willing to concede to what is reasonable, then we can say this was a very reasonable attack on Hezbollah. 

15 hours ago, CdnFox said:

If they have ZERO surity that's not reasonable. 

Oh wait... nevermind... here you are again, demanding they be sure. OK, now I know you are just screwing with me. There is no way... no way you are this stupid, certainly you are this much of a liar. 

 

[CdnFox]

On 9/21/2024 at 1:05 PM, Army Guy said:

Again i ask why in todays world would anyone want a pager, when there is a cell phone that does everything and much more

This has been answered a few times.  Our own medical and fire teams use them here in Canada and the us.  Pagenet is still  a going company here and caters to medical and fire forces specifically:

Sectors & Solutions (pagenet.ca)

Pagers are cheaper. more reliable in circumstances where cell signal doesn't work, more stable in an emergency that damages infrastructure such as earthquake or the like, doesn't interfere with other equipment. 

Hezbolla runs several fire crews and hospitals.  And indeed it was noted some of the dead were medical professionals. 

 

[Moonbox]

2 hours ago, User said:

OK, now I know you are just screwing with me. There is no way... no way you are this stupid, certainly you are this much of a liar. 

Have a couple more conversations with the guy.  You'll figure it out pretty quick.  😆

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

Clearly this is not your position as you repeatedly insist on their having to be sure and just did again. 

 

Clearly you prefer lies to the truth. 

I get it. You've realized you're wrong and you can't argue on the facts so you have to invent something to argue with even if it's a lie. 

Well i guess that means we BOTH know you're wrong. 

2 hours ago, User said:

Oh wait... nevermind... here you are again, demanding they be sure.

Kid  waht is the matter with you?  I very clearly said you can't have ZERO sureity and you have to be REASONBLY sure you're targeting actual combatants. 

And you're once again pretending that i said they have to be "SURE" as in 100 percent. 

You don't need to be absolutely certain but you do have to be reasonably sure what you're targeting is a combatant or a military target.  Many of the people they targeted were NOT combatants and were medical professionals working at Hezbollah run hospitals or firefighters or the like. We're not talking collateral damage there, they were the recipients of the pagers. If you don't know who they're giving the pager's to, then  you're targeting civilians. And as noted that's not ok by international law.  Which is probably why israel is denying they're involved when they're very clearly involved. 

You have to be REASONABLY sure of your target.  In other words you have to be REASONABLY convinced that the thing you're about to blow up is a valid military target or combatant. Mistakes can happen and collateral damage can occur, but you still have to be able to say "we reasonably believed that was a valid target"/ 

They weren't. There's no way they could know the final target. The pagers were given to non combatant and non military civilians, which means they targeted civillian targets in their strike. And that's a violation fo the law i've previously posted. 

Got anything other than lies left or are you just going to make yoruself look like more of a loser posting the same lies over and over?

5 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

Have a couple more conversations with the guy.  You'll figure it out pretty quick.  😆

LOL awww moonie -  following me around again like a puppy i see

Good news User, the guy who just showed he didn't know that the constitution of canada predates the parlaiment of canada just showed up to back you up    The left is here to save you, yay   

[User]

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Hezbolla runs several fire crews and hospitals.  And indeed it was noted some of the dead were medical professionals. 

You still sticking with this story?

Poor Hezbollah, wanting to defeat Israeli signals intelligence, put out the word to start using pagers for this purpose... ordering pagers for this purpose, was really just trying to supply their fire crews and hospital workers with a means of communication to help people. 

Yeah right. 

 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, User said:

I just did. I gave you an entire page full of quotes. The only lie is your playing dumb act now. 

 

Not a one of them said they had to be certain. 

So sure they were quotes  - but not of me saying what you claimed i said  

2 hours ago, User said:

So which is it? Did they have to reasonably know or have to know?

I've repeated this 100 times now.  Do you think just continuing to lie will somehow make your position true? No wonder the lefties of the board are riding to your defense  

2 hours ago, User said:

You can't even keep your own story straight in the same post. I am not lying about anything.

You lie about everything so far. 

I've been as clear as possible. You don't have to be absolutely certain about your target but you have to be REASONABLY sure.   I've given examples - you can bomb a building that is full of terrorsts even if a few civvies are killed, but you can't carpet bomb the whole block hoping to get a few somewhere.  And you must attack a military target  you can't just blow up buildings at random hoping some of them have terrorists. 

They turned the pagers over not knowing who would get them.  They couldn't.  They DID know that hesbolla ran hospitals and the like and those groups use pagers and those are non combatants and NOT valid targets.  And they had no way of knowing who was wearing a pager when they set them off. 

Therefore they could not be reasonably sure that they were attacking military targets or combatants. 

[User]

2 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

you can bomb a building that is full of terrorsts even if a few civvies are killed, but you can't carpet bomb the whole block hoping to get a few somewhere. 

Oh wait, is this where you try to tell me you did not compare anything to anything as you bring up carpet bombing for like the 4th time now?

FFS, you are a pathological liar.