Oh right, you’re just another troll backing the bullshit of another person who started this thread, I see, I didn’t pay attention to the username. Apologies, terribly.

So just read the comment again and input him where I say “you”.

Like I said, you don’t have any logic here. Some things are mutually exclusive.

I kinda don’t love how you’re unable to imagine that your b-grade logic would make Israel any less of a terrorist state.

Trying to assert the problem of induction into anything when faced with shitty things your people have done is honestly just shitty rhetoric. Like trying to play hide and seek with a 2-year old who thinks if they close their eyes no-one can see them.

You fail to stand behind your OWN WORDS.

YOU wrote:

the attacks are extremely targeted, thus not random at all

And

People in the vicinity are not harmed

This wasn’t Israeli outlets saying these things. It was YOU. I’m having an issue with YOUR statements, which you’re desperately trying to run away from.

So the attacks are extremely targeted, and don’t harm “people in the vicinity”. Those are your statements. Then how come a 9-year old girl among others is dead? (And 3000 people injured?)

Sexuality is on a spectrum, because the opposing ends aren’t mutually exclusive. You can do both. What you can’t do is have a cake AND eat it. Because if you eat the cake, you won’t have it. See?

Have you ever driven a car? You come to a crossing where you can go left or right.

If you go left, you didn’t turn right, and if you turn right, you’re turning away from left.

The choices are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. You seem to be really struggling to understand what that means.

Just a reminder, it’s YOUR assertion that these were “extremely targeted, no accident”.

So you yourself have said that Israel bombed and killed civilians on purpose. That’s a crime against humanity. Terrorism.

Fuck terrorist scum like whoever did this cowardly pager attack. Disgusting pos.

Some things are really that binary, when they’re MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Even in the real world, you can’t have you cake AND eat it too. Do you not understand what that means?

You can’t claim “it was extremely targeted, but all the civilian casualties were an accident, even though the accidental things happened on purpose.”

It’s like saying “up is down”. Some things are mutually exclusive.

I keep underlining these things so even a cowardly whataboutist would understand.

You have to choose one, there is no middle-ground as these are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE (you may need to Google the term): was the strike “extremely surgical”? If it was, then the 3000 injured plus ~10 dead, including children, are dead on purpose.

OR

Israel indiscriminately bombs civilians.

There’s no middle option here, no matter how much you’d like for there to be. Either Israel targeted civilians or didn’t care they’d end up killing them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him.

Bibi is fucking kids at night? I thought he couldn’t get more disgusting for fucks sake.

Someone’s personal bedroom has a bit more of what is known as “a reasonable expectation of privacy” than… *literal marketplaces. To pretend you don’t understand the difference is pathetic.

And no-amount of your garbage propaganda will change the fact that you’ve tried asserting mutually exclusive things to be the case. Like propaganda usually does, claiming literally impossible things.

You CAN NOT answer the question. Was it extremely targeted and Israel killed a child on purpose, or did Israel attack so indiscriminately that it killed several innocents and harmed thousands of innocents.

It can’t be both. And I know Netanyahu is a scumbag politician, but I’m sure even his personal bedroom wouldn’t fit 3000 people.

So which is it? Extremely targeted (meaning these civilians are dead on purpose) or wildly uncaring (an indiscriminate bombing)?

You can’t have it both ways.

Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.

It’s one or the other.

These attempts at defending indiscriminate attacks on civilian population are fucking disgusting. I genuinely don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re defending the death of a 9-year-old girl.

More like “you want to kill a soccer player who did something very bad to you. You get a soccer ball and plant it full of explosives. You leave it on a football pitch. Not even necessarily the one the player you’re trying to kill uses. Just a pitch. Any pitch. Then you hope that the first person to touch the ball and explode is the person you intended. You end up killing several innocents and injuring hundreds.”

Despite all your shitty propaganda, THE STATEMENTS ARE STILL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can’t be “extremely surgical attacks” which accidentally kill innocent children.

That’s like saying you’re a vegan who eats meat. Doesn’t fucking work.

So was Israel’s attack “extremely targeted” and they 'chose* to kill a 9-year-old-girl OR were these terror attacks so uncontrolled and chaotic that a child died on accident?

It’s EITHER OR.

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??

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?

By tracking who sent what to whom?

And since tracking the devices is actually impossible, how would you know which pager is where and held by whom,

Say one of the pagers wasn’t delivered to the person who you “know” it to belong to. Say it got dropped in front of a school. Say another person who has one and even is a Hezbollah member, is visiting a children’s hospital, because they’re people too and usually have reasons to fight (even if their fighting style is immoral to some). Say another is eating dinner with his family. Etc. Etc. Etc.

There’s no way to verify any of that. It’s basically just as bad if not worse than carpet-bombing. Unless you implant a device like this on a person and then have surveillance on that person to know where they are and who with when you detonate the device, you’re probably doing a war crime.

You can’t track a pager.

A mobile tower will send it a message, but since there’s no two-way communication, theres no way to track where the pager received the message. (Even if it was a two-way one, you need at least three good points of connection to be able to triangulate it.)

So how exactly do you identify who’s using a pager you don’t even know the location of?

You obviously don’t know how tracking works.

Ditto

Which explains why the IDF has had so many “accidents” recently.

Yeah, anecdotes aren’t science.

Especially when we’ve established how biased society’s view of cannabis is.

Caffeine can actually kill you of an overdose. It’s not even that rare, medically. Not compared to zero cannabis overdose deaths.

Caffeine can even cause auditory hallucinations on a fairly small dosage. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/caffeine-linked-to-hallucinations-51161154/

https://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2016/04/20/cannabis-vs-caffeine-which-is-safer-a-cup-of-coffee-or-a-puff-of-weed/

CONCLUSION

To conclude, caffeine is clearly more risky, more dangerous, more deadly, more harmful and more costly than cannabis in every category – overdose deaths, overuse deaths, withdrawal symptoms and acute toxicity.

Yes the site is “cannabisculture”, but they give sources to actual science outlets and specific publications

And this isn’t to say that caffeine is really that dangerous, as it isn’t. You can abuse it and get problems, but most don’t. It’s more addictive and more dangerous and more used, and less worried about. They hypocrisy around coffee is expecially high here in Finland.

It’s honestly crazy, I’ve had to strip down and take a piss in front of a guy who’s lips were packed with snus and who was on his 12th cup of strong coffee for the day. As in he had to visually confirm I didn’t have any gadgets or anything on my dick.

All this because I got a fine for smoking cannabis. And I had to do that every week, on random days, for six months. Beyond humiliating, especially done by people who were clearly sorely addicted themselves, which I wasn’t. (At the time I didn’t use caffeine or nicotine — even going so far as to not eat chocolate because of it’s caffeine content.)

I don’t think I’ve met anyone whose had a panic attack from drinking coffee

Yes you have. Go to literally any high school, and like a third of the kids are so high on energy drinks that they’d get a low score of mania on clinical tests. Just because you’ve not associated someone’s behaviour with caffeine doesn’t mean it didn’t cause it as much as cannabis the anxiety attacks of the people you talk of.

And caffeine is actually regulated, formally. Cannabis isn’t. So you’d get way stronger strains than what you might if it were legal, ans definitely strains with more CBD, which counteracts the psychotic effects of THC.

You literally couldn’t give the equivalent of that in caffeine, because it’d be like 8 large energy drinks and would literally kill a person, whereas with a cannabis overdose, you’ll get anxiety instead of a coronary and death. Also, the anxiety is very strongly connected to the legality of cannabis as well. In places whereby cannabis is legal, those sorts of anxiety attacks are far fewer.

Video games are habit forming. Do you think they should have labels on them? Literally anything can be addictive. What causes the “cannabis isn’t addictive” myth is that cannabis doesn’t cause dependence. As in you could smoke insane amounts for several years daily, then quit cold turkey, ans only suffer a few days of insomnia if that.

With alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, you’ll get actual physical withdrawal symptoms. With alcohol so bad that you can die.

Literally everything you say is the opposite of truth, in classical Russian fashion. :D

Dude, you’re the one actually breaking rules and abusing your mod status, and you dare cry “harassment”? So I’ve made your tummy feel bad by insisting you answer or deny being a direct perpetuator of Russian propaganda — which insists Russia hasn’t broken international law. When it clearly has.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine

You won’t say it, so I will: Russia has broken international law, and anyone who argues they didn’t is lying through their teeth and doing so on purpose.