No, it can’t be both.

You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.

I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?

Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. 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. Human Rights Watch

So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?

Can’t fucking be both, can it?

True. Who would want a 9-year-old-girl as kitchen personnel?

Ah. So this 9-year-old-girl was killed on purpose then, I take it?

Since “People in the vicinity are not harmed” it had to have been targeted. Right? Right??

It’s just indiscriminate terrorism.

My point exactly.

People telling you that this shows some kind of technical or intelligence brilliance by Mossad are lying or gullible.

Couldn’t agree more. I’m waiting on their responses though, should make for fascinating reading if they even attempt it.

Also, it’s just about the size and shape of the machines basically and they’re in the same industries.

So is it really that different of an industry, or two sub-industries of like… plastics, in general?

lol smh

I’d like to see the people who were commenting along the lines of “these were extremely targeted strikes” and “most surgical of surgical strikes” explain why this girl is dead?

Either those assertions were indeed correct and these were extremely targeted, which would mean Israel killed a 9-year old girl on purpose — OR the attacks were indiscriminate bombings in civilian places.

So which one is it?

Nice

Cleaning a disposable bazooka?

Yes, that’s why you can’t respond with more than two words, but still have to reply, despite having to also avoid the topics of our language skills and what your comment at the start of this thread meant.

It really is weird that you have this pathological avoidance yet obsess over replying here.

We both know you read it. We both know which of us has more language skills, and we both know what you meant at the start of the thread.

Explicitly combatants… and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity when the bomb goes off.

“Extremely” targeted you say? So when they were detonated, the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians?

You started this with “thats why it’s important to have a lot of cameras”, to which someone responded “so the cops can shut them off, like they did Afroman’s?”, to which you responded “cops wouldn’t…”

Then I entered the conversation, because you’ve asserted what cops would and wouldn’t do, showing just how much faith — wrongly, though — you have in the justice system.

You’re just really hard trying to ad hoc what you said, but unlike in real life, what has been said is actually on record, so bullshitting your way out of this doesn’t work as easily as with your mates in the pub.

Weird how you yourself commented on the “language barrier” and what you thought was an incorrect use of the English language, yet now have completely shut up about it, almost as if you’re avoiding comparing your language skills to mine. Perhaps because you don’t like feeling stupid?

Ah, so… what exactly is the reason that you think having video of cops makes you safe?

You’re trying to avoid seeming foolish. Like when you tried to correct my English.

So… how many languages do you speak?

You use “being on camera” to imply that since they’re on camera, they’ll face consequences for whatever they might do.

With law enforcement, that isn’t nearly as probable as you think. I hope you have those feeds recording to a server that isn’t located on the same premises, at the very least. Even if you have the material though, it usually doesn’t mean a thing. Cops can justify pretty much anything in the US, and the justice system tends to go their way. Sure, you can show a few examples of cops actually sentenced, but for each one, there’s at least a dozen cases of officers who got off scot-free or with a warning, and a hundred more who weren’t even investigated.

And as to your pitiful attempts at insults with your assumption that your English is better than mine? I’ve more than likely used English longer than you. More than you. In addition, I speak another language on a native level and several others on a customer service level. How many do you speak?

He specifically mentioned “in the context of the US”.

If he had been talking about any other English-speaking country, I’d say it would be somewhat irrelevant.

But it most certainly isn’t when talking about the US, especially southern US.

Well written. To add: “Boy” coming from a white person to a black man is even more offensive, what with all the chattel slavery history and whatnot.