Sure! If you can tell me a bit more on the 'surprise war of aggression' you're referencing I''ll be happy to comment
nonailsleft
joined 2 years ago
You can turn that around as well, as the attack Hezbollah was retaliating for was, in itself, retaliatory. Only calling Hezbollah's attack would imply that they were retailating for a first strike attack (which, as we know from the playground, is the difference between right and wrong).
The idea that each and every article, let alone the title, should encompass the entire conflict and, why not, the history of the Earth is very dumb and it just sounds like you want to see your own propaganda injected into what is basically normal and balanced journalism
Do you think the situation would have been better if Hezbollah didn't restart the border conflict back in October?
Would you be happier with a title such as "Israeli airstrikes tried to 'prevent' a 'well planned and succesfully executed' rocket strike from Hezbollah" ?
That just sounds like you want a stupid paper for stupid people, with longer titles
If they knew of an impending Israeli airstrike, and they fired the rockets at the aircraft or airfields, would you not call it a pre-emptive strike??
Well let me start by saying that your take on the conflict is, again, very one sided. It's history and how we got to this point is a lot more nuanced. That is a different discussion than the initial one but of course related.
My take on that, in brief, comes down to both Arab nationalists/islamists and zionists/jews seeing around 1920 that it would eventually come to an armed conflict between the two religious sides, and both moving their mindset to remove the other from the territory. And it did come to an armed conflict, which one side won and the other lost.
But even then, there is a lot of nuance as there was and is a spectrum between extremists and people who want to live in peace. Over time, violence from both sides has shifted that spectrum. A lot of people seem to have forgotten that it was not always like this, but up until the first intifada, someone from Gaza could just go visit their friends in the Kibbutz next door.
And you can say that the blame for all this falls squarely on the zionists for slowly moving towards their goal, but I would counter that it also falls on the islamists: instead of a two-state solution, they chose to fight and lost. (Whether they were right to do this is yet another discussion.) But after they lost the military conflict(s), they then chose to never give up and continue to, as you say, antagonize Israel until the end of time. The friendly peaceful rocket attacks from Hezbollah are part of this. And the prospect of this neverending violence has greatly shifted and hardened the mindset on the moderate Israelis as well, which spiralled into the current situation.
People like you who choose to go on these threads in an attempt to de-rail the whole conversations
That's because you (and a lot of other lemmings) expect these 'converstations' to be warm and simplistic, circlejerking how Israel is bad. Am I 'derailing' the conversation by stating the OP's collage is idiotic? Their take that a strike cannot be called pre-emptive because they don't like the side that did it is just very, very idiotic. And when I call people out for this idiocy, the argument shifts towards an even more idiotic one : "Hezbollah never planned an attack, that's an Israeli lie". When I point out that stupidity by refering to the chief of Hezbollah proudly proclaiming they executed an attack after they had planned it for a month, the conversation is derailed back towards the argument "why would you defend Israel?".
I don't defend Israel, I'm defending the truth about the events from Sunday. I worry that people like yourself think it's ok to lie about clear facts because they (probably) think it will make the world better.
Happy to see his house's door is built to spec
Fair enough
I just think you're so angry about Israel, you don't really care about the truth anymore
Hezbollah is just as keen as Israel to keep their PR story straight wrt civilian victims.
If you don't 'for a second' believe the Israeli strike on Sunday was 'pre-emptive', what would you call it? Hezbollah planned a big rocket strike and Israeli jets tried bombing their launch sites half an hour before. As far as strikes go, it doesn't really get more textbook 'pre-emptive' than that.
If you believe Israel's reactions aren't necessary or justified, how would you suggest they react to Hezbollah firing rockets at them? Should they act like these rockets don't exist? Do you think that if Israel never struck back, Hezbollah would just get tired of it over time and stop?
You believe Hezbollah would gladly claim they killed some kids playing soccer? I guess you also believe that rocket materialized out of thin air right above them
Which actions of Israel do you think I am dismissing?
Hezbollah on Sunday said it had launched guided rockets and artillery onto three posts in the Shebaa Farms "in solidarity" with the Palestinian people.
The Lebanese army said shells and rockets had been launched from southern Lebanon onto "occupied Lebanese territory," without saying who was responsible, and that returning Israeli fire had left several people wounded.
The United Nations peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, known as UNIFIL, said it had "detected several rockets fired from southeast Lebanon toward Israeli-occupied territory" as well as artillery fire from Israel into Lebanon in response.
Maybe you can share your sources that led you to believe they are all lying?
Yeah but your own contribution fits right in there with the 4 examples in the OP. Remember: you can't use 'pre-emptive'. That's a manipulation & narrative control term