Weaponizing ordinary devices violates international law, United Nations rights chief says
Weaponizing ordinary devices violates international law, United Nations rights chief says
The United Nations human rights chief says weaponizing ordinary communication devices represents a new development in warfare.
You're viewing part of a thread.
They are asking for the source of your statement that less then 0.1% of the victims where valid targets. Since most have seen evidence to the exact opposite of that statement.
Oh and although I can put links to back that statement up, I will not. (Since that is the presiding fashion here apparently)
They are asking for the source of your statement that less then 0.1% of the victims where valid targets
Hezbollah is the source. That’s three times I’ve said so. What about that is still unclear?
When asked for a source, you're asked to link to a specific statement or report. If you just say who is your source without providing a link, it looks like not only do you don't have any, but that you don't have any idea of what you're talking about.
It's extremely damaging to your side, no matter where the truth is.
When asked for a source, you're asked to link to a specific statement or report.
Sounds like a real pain in the ass, and a bad-faith way to move a great deal of burden to someone you’d like to shut up. I told you what the source was; why don’t you do your own fucking homework?
The same Hezbollah that claim this was an "act of war" and in nothing I can find give any indication of non Hezbollah casualties? Once again I can link the translated statement from Hezbollah to support this, but since you for some reason will not neither will I.
Oh and to show this is not a lack of effort by myself here is a link to the information on Vitamin D toxicity
Your argumentation genuinely made me lol, thanks for that. I especially enjoyed the vitamin d article substitution
The same Hezbollah that claim this was an "act of war" and in nothing I can find give any indication of non Hezbollah casualties?
Why would Hezbollah report non-Hezbollah casualties? They’re not the government of Lebanon.
You wrote that fewer than .1% of casualties from the detonations were not hezbollah. When asked for a source you wrote: hezbollah. When pressed for a source you've now countered: "why would hezbollah report that?".
We don't know; it's your premise. Where did you get that stat?
I’m assuming that, out of the total reported casualties, the ones Hezbollah doesn’t claim are the civilians. Can you explain your issue with that reasoning?
I’ll grant that there may be Hezbollah casualties that Hezbollah won’t publicly claim, but that would strengthen my case, not yours.
No sources, eh? Let me help: At least 12 civilians were killed and 2800 people injured by pager bombs. Hezbollah reported 11 members died that day.
Can you explain why you are making up stats with no source?
Didn't you say they were the ones who reported your non-Hezbollah casualty figure though?
You could just link to what you're talking about, that might clear up any confusion.
Didn't you say they were the ones who reported your non-Hezbollah casualty figure though?
I don’t have any “non-Hezbollah casualty figures.” I’m assuming that any casualties Hezbollah doesn’t claim are the civilians.
You could just link to what you're talking about
I’m still not understand what you’re finding unclear.
You've not sourced your 0.1% figure. Safe to assume there is none.
The source is Hezbollah. As I’ve told you.
This is the most infuriating comment section I have ever seen.
For propaganda, they reported the girl dying right away
Yes, and that would be why we are wondering how that would be proof of a lack of non-Hezbollah casualties.
Well, if you subtract the Hezbollah casualties from the total casualties, there’s hardly any casualties left.
Are you asking for a source for arithmetic, or something?
Oh good thing you told us where that info was then. Its not like the numbers of victims are still unknown or unaccounted for. Its also great that you provided all that evidence of "guilt" for everyone injured.
en. Its not like the numbers of victims are still unknown or unaccounted for.
How many are those? Why would there be any unaccounted victims at all?
It's hundreds of explosions, some of which were in cars (presumably causing car accidents) and crowded areas. It was terrifying. Victims may not want to come forward since it connects them with a group of people being targeted with fucking bombs, something they personally witnessed. They don't want to be next. Or they don't want people to think their deceased loved one was a terrorist.
It's hundreds of explosions, some of which were in cars (presumably causing car accidents) and crowded areas.
A person injured in a crowded area would be rapidly attended to and accounted for, especially by now, two days later.
If there’s an unaccounted victim, it’s somebody off by themselves with a Hezbollah pager and thus not a civilian. So this argument actually works against you.
Have you ever worked in emergency medicine or been in an accident? Someone could have been hit with shrapnel and hid it due to sheer adrenaline. People have been shot in mass shootings and had limbs bit off by sharks and not really "noticed." It's entirely possible to keep going/dissociate from an injury if you think that the bombing event will continue, if you're still in danger, if you think acknowledging your wound will put you in danger. Or if you think people will assume your innocent kid that got killed was a terrorist, you might want to lie about how they died so you can have a nice funeral and people won't remember them like that or accuse your family of being terrorists.
There's also shrapnel from car accidents as well as shrapnel from the bombs.
I'm not actually arguing, I was answering your question about why some injuries may have gone unreported by people who weren't Hezbollah. However, I would say that any groups of innocent casualties seems to show that the attacks were not very specific as originally criticized.