“YOU’RE A MONSTER! YOU ANIMAL! YOU DOG!” Unhinged Leftist LOSES His Mind In HEATED Debate

55:05 to be fair, Israel made peace with Egypt by giving back a bunch of land they stole, They made peace with Jordan by making a bunch of promises that they have subsequently broken, and they made peace with Saudi Arabia because the Saudis are a pack of amoral kleptocractic theocrats.

Its rich for a marine to say the idf cant do anything when the army always has to save their asses. Every. Single. Time.

So… He knows that a lot of civilliand died, but Israel doesn't know because there's no information about he claims to know, and Lebanon hasn't show any information backing up his claim… Got it.

He sounds like Cenk Uygur.

No way this guy was a marine deployed in Iraq. He just made that up.

His point was he didnt like the unpredictablilty of where the explosives ended up and it is debatably a POTENTIAL warcrime, not that they arent allowed to defend themselves. Bro was too in his feeling to articulate it in a non retarded way.

Idk, I've seen "civilian" looking phones in my time in the military, and they usually frown on you handing them out to friends and family. They usually want you to use them for official communication only.

A lot of American spy movie tropes were born out of the legends of the Cold War, which was a shadow war of espionage and chilled politics.

With that in mind I absolutely cannot wait for Middle Eastern spy movies in 25 years 😂 the plots will amount to schizophrenic hallucinations

"I've got my own audience idiot!" the guy with probably 15 people watching him repeatedly screams… I have no idea how you could talk to this guy for that long. His entire debate "strategy" is to just scream and call you a genocide denier and virtue signal over and over and over. Typical far left weirdo.

Dude sounds 11

“READ THE NEXT PARAGRAPH.” references the previous paragraph
“That was before, read the next segment”
“I don’t care”

Westsidetyler’s brain injury is really showing in this one

@westsidetyler next time tell the va to give you stronger meds before you sperg out

Hold on, isn't asking, "Is Israel legitimate in targeting Hezbolah's troops?" Kinda a bad question? Because they might be legitimate. They have been under attack by them, there were trade blocks, etc. But like so much has gone wrong for us to be asking this question. Like these attacks are at face value a response to the ocupation of gaza (you can argue true motives, but that's the stated motives), which is the direct result of the terrorist attack on israel, which is a direct result of the oppression the people of Palestinie have been under by Israel. This is just responding to war crimes with more war crimes. It's kind of a moot question.

You should give a headache warning

I'm really not a fan of Tyler in this debate, but I got to the section at 18:30 and am questioning the validity of Lonerbox's rebuttal. Tyler argues that Israel's attack is prohibited under Article 7 Clause 2. Lonerbox then responds that the attack is permitted according to Article 7 Clause 3, because there is precedent that exception (a) (i.e. that they are placed on or in the close vicinity of a military objective) applies to enemy combatants.

Now, I fully agree that enemy combatants fall under Clause 3 (a) given this precedent. However, Clause 3's statement is of the form "It is prohibited to do X unless either (a) or (b)", not "It is permissible to do X if either (a) or (b) holds". In other words, because (a) holds, Clause 3 doesn't prohibit the attack, but it definitely doesn't mean that it overrides prohibitions given by other clauses in Article 7 or the wider document. So this point doesn't at all invalidate Tyler's claim about violating Clause 2:

"It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material".

So, I'll investigate whether Tyler's claim has merit. There are 3 things to consider to say that the devices Israel used were prohibited under this clause:

(i) The devices used were "booby traps" or "other devices".
This is easy to answer; reading the definition of "other devices" they clearly fall under it: "'Other devices' means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time."

(ii) They were in the form of "apparently harmless portable objects".
While I could not find precedent on this, I would argue that pagers and cell phones fall under "apparently harmless portable objects" as (1) they are portable, and (2) by their commonness and intended use being communications, a reasonable person would not consider them to be a potential source of harm.

(iii) They were specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.
While they definitely contained explosive material, I'm not 100% sure how to interpret the "specifically designed and constructed" bit. One one hand, the pagers were intercepted by Israel and modified, so you could say they themselves weren't specifically designed and constructed for this. But this line of reasoning would mean that almost nothing is actually covered by Clause 2, since the most straightforward way you'd make an explosive device in the "form of apparently harmless portable objects" is by embedding it in an existing object. The way I see it, it is precisely the explosive device inserted in the pager that gives it the qualification of "other device", so it makes way more sense to look at the pager as the "form of apparently harmless portable objects" that was given to the "other device". With this interpretation it is trivial that the statement holds.

So, ultimately it depends on how you interpret (iii). If you agree with me that it applies, then Israel's attack violates Article 7 Clause 2 of the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, and is thus a war crime. Ultimately it would be for a judge to decide.

EDIT 1: If anyone is wondering, Israel is a signatory of this treaty and made no reservations or declarations regarding Article 7 Clause 2.
EDIT 2: Clarified my reasoning as to why I think (iii) applies to the devices Israel used, and integrated it in the main point.

Infuriating

The ratio of militants to civilians for deaths was 37:3. So, obviously, the ratio of militants to civilians for injuries is 0:2500. Gotcha.

Who is this loser? He’s gotta sit there and screech like a toddler to talk to ppl? He needs to talk to a VA person to get help for his anger issues.

is lonerbox actually defending the pager bombs?

Thank you🙏🏿

Terrorists are not protected by Geneva Conventions. As personnel which do not abide with the rules of Conventions there are taken out from protection of these laws. Even soldiers who are fight in civilian clothing or use enemy uniforms automatically lose that protection. Members of those organisations are only protected if they fight in uniforms that are marked and provide recognition of their role as combatant. Fighting behind civilians also is taking out their protection.