Pager Attack In Lebanon

Article:
Israel appears to be exploiting disarray in Lebanese Hezbollah in order to inflict further damage upon the group. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) conducted an airstrike in southern Beirut on September 20, killing several senior commanders in Hezbollah's Radwan special operations forces unit.[1] The targeted individuals included Ibrahim Aqil, who was the overall Radwan commander. He was also a member of the Hezbollah Jihad Council, which oversees the group's military operations. That Israel detected and was able to target such a sensitive meeting suggests that Hezbollah is suffering from lapses in operational security—possibly caused by Israel detonating the pagers and personal radios used by Hezbollah members.[2] These detonations compromised Hezbollah's primary and secondary means of communication. CTP-ISW previously observed that Hezbollah could revert to less secure methods of communication, such as phones and radio relays, in order to rapidly restore communications.[3] Doing so would leave Hezbollah vulnerable, given that Israel could intercept these signals.
 
There's some weird edge areas here too.

So, I won't state I think this happened, we have no material to state so. Although, theoretically speaking, you could entirely drop leaflets like this if your intent was to increase evacuations due to perceptive fear, that, would include people that otherwise wouldn't just leave from a normal evac leaflet. There's some other potential effects too. That'd all be entirely legitimate in a legal sense, of course, some may fairly debate the technique.

I would note, the claimed leaflets do actually say this. With that said, the leaflets look like an odd one out to me. The actual document background with the blue borders and etc I've never seen IDF or any Israeli service using that, plenty examples online of the general formatting their leaflets have and the colors and all they contain. They were also printed crooked, which, not a major key but worth consideration.

We'd be obliged if you could upload a photograph of the "claimed leaflets" that "do actually say this"? You seem to have seen a picture of a leaflet with "blue borders". I failed to spot it on the Al Jazeera article.
 
I would note, the claimed leaflets do actually say this.

That sentence doesn't make sense.
Yes, it does to me. My interpretation is that (1) genuine Israeli leaflets would not say that, but (2) there exist leaflets that do say it. But both the words and the actual appearance point to there being "fake" Hezbollah-created leaflets for their own propaganda purposes. They may or may not have been dropped over Lebanon; that's still to be determined.

@Tezcatlipoca , do I have that right?
 
Dropping leaflets is not a war crime, no matter what's on them.
"Fresh water now available from such-and-such pump
[+] International Red Cross"

External Quote:

Article 38 - Recognized emblems


1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrument...ugust-1949-and#article-38--recognized-emblems
 
Here is the "unauthorized" September 15/16 IDF leaflet (together with a Google Translate copy) as reported by The Times of Israel:

IDF Leaflet.JPG


IDF Leaflet Google Translation.JPG


Here is a similar IDF leaflet (as well as a Google Translate copy) dropped in northern Gaza on 21 September 2023 as reported by Amnesty International:

IDF Leaflet Gaza - Amnesty.JPG


IDF Leaflet Gaza - Amnesty - Google Translation.JPG


Albeit Amnesty's agenda is not one I subscribe to, I do not doubt their photograph's authenticity. And since it appears IDF has, in previous leaflets, explicitly deemed civilians failing to comply with IDF evacuation orders as possible terrorists or partners to terrorists, it is likely that the Lebanon blue leaflet drops, declared as "unauthorized" by IDF, were indeed commissioned by the commander of the 769th "Hiram" Regional Brigade, Col. Avi Marciano.

Whether Col. Marciano acted out of personal assumption/authority or received permission from the head of the Northern Command or other IDF senior officers, which the Northern Command denies according to the ToI article, remains a question mark.

These types of threats and the resulting civilian casualties may indeed be regarded a war crime of collective punishment (Common Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Article 4 of the Additional Protocol II) whereby civilians are, somewhat explicitly, regarded as military targets if they fail to comply with evacuation orders for whatever reason, valid or invalid.

None of the above obviously implies Israel doesn't have the right to militarily target the terrorist organizations and other armed forces that attack Israel, which is a whole 'nother debate which we probably don't want to get drawn into on this thread. In fact, despite its evident sneakiness and employment of deception tactics, the pager attack remains far better in compliance with Geneva and IHL than the disproportionate airstrikes that have been carried out in Gaza.
 
Dropping leaflets is not a war crime, no matter what's on them.

External Quote:
Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and Protocols
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=

"Advice" which puts civilians at increased risk is also prohibited, such as encouraging refugees to move to areas in the way of advancing enemy formations. It is not legal to encourage, or threaten to use, targeting/ tactics/ techniques contrary to international law.

In addition, a combatant declaring "No quarter shall be given", e.g. if you don't comply you will all be killed, breaches the international laws of armed conflict, although such declarations are common
(I'm not persuaded the alleged IDF leaflet, "...may be determined an accomplice in a terrorist organisation" is an example):

External Quote:
No quarter, during military conflict, implies that combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killed. Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter

Whether prosecutions are successfully (and impartially) pursued against those breaking international law is a different matter.
 
Last edited:
doesn't apply, see 8 (l)
External Quote:
(l) "Distinctive emblem" means the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground when used for the protection of medical units and transports, or medical and religious personnel, equipment or supplies;
Not for the protection of leaflets.

External Quote:
Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and Protocols
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=
I'd have highlighted "primary purpose" here. But yeah, that may be a way to commit a war crime using leaflets. Though I'm not sure that there's precedent for it.
 
In addition, a combatant declaring "No quarter shall be given", e.g. if you don't comply you will all be killed, breaches the international laws of armed conflict, although such declarations are common
(I'm not persuaded the alleged IDF leaflet, "...may be determined an accomplice in a terrorist organisation" is an example):

Obviously the illegality of the less definite language of the Gaza leaflet is up to legal experts and judges at the ICC or ICJ to determine better than yours truly. However, the relevant statute reads as follows:

Article:

Article 4 - Fundamental guarantees


1. All persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities, whether or not their liberty has been restricted, are entitled to respect for their person, honour and convictions and religious practices. They shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction. It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.


The Gaza leaflet effectively declares that IDF reserves the right to determine an unevacuated civilian's status as "accomplice in a terrorist organization" on an undisclosed and, for all practical purposes, arbitrary basis. The Lebanon leaflet deems the unevacuated civilian automatically as a "terrorist element" who "will be punished" on the basis of deadline (four o'clock). Whilst the latter language is stronger, the terms laid out in both leaflets (ascribed to IDF and not denied by IDF), for all practical purposes (which counts in legal determination), justify IDF to target "persons who do not take a direct part or who have ceased to take part in hostilities" as stipulated in Article 4 above.
 
doesn't apply, see 8 (l)
External Quote:
(l) "Distinctive emblem" means the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun on a white ground when used for the protection of medical units and transports, or medical and religious personnel, equipment or supplies;
Not for the protection of leaflets.

The red cross emblem may be used by a military/armed group on a leaflet for deception such that an explosive device is planted at the well where people are ushered by the leaflet. Unless I misunderstood @FatPhil's example.

Even if I did, the foregoing would somewhat evidently qualify as a war crime in terms of "improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross" on a leaflet. And I hate to think I'm giving ideas. I admit never having seen such a deception as yet. But neither did we anticipate the pager attack.
 
That sentence doesn't make sense.

We'd be obliged if you could upload a photograph of the "claimed leaflets" that "do actually say this"? You seem to have seen a picture of a leaflet with "blue borders". I failed to spot it on the Al Jazeera article.
Got to this late but LilWabbit got them above for ya.


Yes, it does to me. My interpretation is that (1) genuine Israeli leaflets would not say that, but (2) there exist leaflets that do say it. But both the words and the actual appearance point to there being "fake" Hezbollah-created leaflets for their own propaganda purposes. They may or may not have been dropped over Lebanon; that's still to be determined.

@Tezcatlipoca , do I have that right?
Yes. Although, I would put the hypothesis that they're fake a bit below them being real (though with a caveat). That caveat being, the wording may not have been 100% reflective of what they actually intended to do. With the information we have though the legitimate hypothesis is greater, and both forms of it (real to form vs caveat form) are equally balanced atm. We would need another indicator or two to push the false hypothesis greater.

External Quote:
Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
International Committee of the Red Cross, International Humanitarian Law Databases, Geneva Conventions and Protocols
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51?activeTab=

"Advice" which puts civilians at increased risk is also prohibited, such as encouraging refugees to move to areas in the way of advancing enemy formations. It is not legal to encourage, or threaten to use, targeting/ tactics/ techniques contrary to international law.

In addition, a combatant declaring "No quarter shall be given", e.g. if you don't comply you will all be killed, breaches the international laws of armed conflict, although such declarations are common
(I'm not persuaded the alleged IDF leaflet, "...may be determined an accomplice in a terrorist organisation" is an example):

External Quote:
No quarter, during military conflict, implies that combatants would not be taken prisoner, but killed. Since the Hague Convention of 1899, it is considered a war crime; it is also prohibited in customary international law and by the Rome Statute. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "it is especially forbidden [...] to declare that no quarter will be given".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_quarter

Whether prosecutions are successfully (and impartially) pursued against those breaking international law is a different matter.
Planning activities like this is really complex, and, there's a reason these teams generally have lawyers on them chiming in there. The lawyer would make the final decision but, generally speaking, you can actually do this, if your intent is instead to induce more evacuations, rather than induce fear. How exactly you place things in wording though can alter that and make it really tricky.
That's what's interesting with this leaflet making the patent claim, vs as you see with others, they say "may be considered an accomplice" and etc, the gravity of wording itself is far less severe and the "may" there adds in one of those wiggle areas.


IHL is kind of horribly written to cover Information & Influence Activities in their modern sense. As a random example here, the leaflet containing "may" and "accomplice" is entirely legitimate per international laws, policies, and regulations largely held for the conduct of Information & Influence Activities. It rests in a tiny wiggle area that, if worded differently, yes could be issued.
Equally, this leaflet here *could* be issued, but there's also some crux areas to that. Eg if the intent was to induce more evacuations away from conflict, the behavioral change objective is them leaving the area, and the end-state would be less civilians in a potential combat zone. Fear may be considered here, as for example, an emotional state which may be amplified that results in the behavioral change.
Now, if it was purely attitudinal and/or emotional targeted and not behavioral, and your targeted emotional change *was to induce fear*, with the end-state being oriented around this exact amplified emotional state - that is a problem.

For anyone interested in exactly that, probably the best modern case is Stanilav Galic during the Yugoslav wars. He made use of these activities within the problemed and specifically too the fear-raising and terror context. Some of the specific conclusions rested in here are used as specific precedent for/against things when assessing activities that may stray close to it (by some actors anyways). Definitely more of a nerd read though not super important to the discussion here.
https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2003/en/40194
 
Last edited:
I agree with @Tezcatlipoca on the legal "wiggle room" / latitude afforded to IDF at prospective war crimes courts being the reason for the 'softer' (yet still problematic) language of the Gaza leaflet.

However, in terms of military tactics, employing overwhelming force quickly to neutralize the adversary without risking own combatants is the most obvious reason for air raids and airstrikes ever since they became technologically feasible in the history of warfare. Air raids have also claimed the most civilian casualties by a wide margin. Hence the leaflets by the IDF.

The moral reality of war, just as the moral reality of most issues, consists of many shades of gray rather than being a black and white metric.

It is ethically sound to differentiate between the following three forms of armed aggression involving civilian casualties while each remain morally questionable. They are listed in the order of moral reprehensibility based on what I understand to be modern Western legal ethos:

(1) Attacks against unarmed civilians for ideological fixation, political coercion, revenge or sport;

(2) Attacks against unarmed civilians to deter an acute military threat;

(3) Attacks against real security threats or military targets surrounded by civilians and without being too bothered about collateral civilian damage (note: issuing advance warnings and evacuation requests does not yet constitute a far-reaching concern for civilian casualties).

Each of the three categories share some common denominators yet they are still ethically and tactically different and frequently confused with one another. For me, it is problematic to confidently declare that category 3 represents morally as reprehensible and cold-blooded an aggression as categories 1 and 2.

Furthermore, each case has to be evaluated on its own merits, and there are multiple levels and types of moral reprehensibility within each category.

Unfortunately, there's an additional layer of moral complexity: Casualty numbers also count in measuring the moral gravity of an aggression. For instance, Hamas perpetrates 1, which is in one sense morally more reprehensible. Israel perpetrates 3 from a defensive posture, but with its huge civilian casualties, its category 3 aggressions have effectively closed the gap of moral reprehensibility to Hamas' more cold-blooded category 1 tactics. All evident moral high ground is quickly lost by huge casualty numbers. Hence the moral justification of Nagasaki and Hiroshima remain debated till today.

Category (1) represents terrorism proper. Attacks on the World Trade Centre, mindless killings of Norwegian youth campers, school shootings in North America, and suicide bombings across the world against all manner of civilians ranging from journalists and humanitarian workers to mall-goers, music festival attendants and peaceful residential neighbourhoods. I'm personally the fortunate survivor of two such devastating attacks in Afghanistan. This category also comprises state-sponsored terrorism, genocides, summary executions and tortures of civilians. It includes both insurgent militias and official state soldiers brutalized by war engaging in senseless raping and killing sprees against civilians, often in the state of drug or adrenaline-induced hysteria. In addition to the more recent conflicts, Rwanda, My Lai massacre, the Blitz, the Nanking Massacre and, last but not the least, the Holocaust, come readily to mind.

Category (2) includes a narrower variety of mainly military tactics and aerial bombardments; Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and similar attacks against primarily civilian settlements to deter a militant government from further military hostilities.

Category (3), among other things, includes the bombardment of Berlin by the Allies, the B-52 bombardment of North Vietnam by the Americans as well as Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip. In the case of Gaza, the dropping of leaflets and the sending of texts as advance warnings have been carried out with the knowledge that human shields are probably forcibly used and hence major civilian casualties are inevitable unless less-risky-to-civilians but more-risky-to-soldier tactics of house-to-house ground combat are adopted.
 
Last edited:
Air raids have also claimed the most civilian casualties by a wide margin.

In the current Israel/ Hamas and Hezbollah conflict.
Not in e.g. World War II (fully accepting that you didn't claim that).

In the case of Gaza, the dropping of leaflets and the sending of texts as advance warnings have been carried out with the knowledge that human shields are probably forcibly used and hence major civilian casualties are inevitable

This is certainly the case with the Israeli (and some other nationality) hostages, and hostage-taking is always a war crime.
Is there any evidence that other 'human shields' are being used?
 
Last edited:
In the current Israel/ Hamas and Hezbollah conflict.
Not in e.g. World War II (fully accepting that you didn't claim that).

You're right of course. Discounting the likes of the Holocaust or Cambodian genocide decades later, and many other examples some of which were listed under category 1 in the above, and not just restricted to World War II.

This is certainly the case with the Israeli (and some other nationality) hostages, and hostage-taking is always a war crime.
Is there any evidence that other 'human shields' are being used?

I am using the term "human shield" in the broader sense it was used in Afghanistan whereby militants hide in villages, houses or residential areas while engaging in attacks or launching operations, fully conscious that by so doing the adversary will hesitate using overwhelming retaliatory force, and if it does, effectively inoculating the civilian population against it. But you're right that this is not the technical sense in which "human shield" is defined under the IHL.

In fact the coalition forces' rules of engagement in Afghanistan under Gen. David Petraeus softened somewhat and could be considered as a category 4 approach whereby a pilot is to call off an airstrike if even uncertain of civilian presence. In other words, category 4 would denote attacks against real or perceived security threats with a far-reaching attempt to minimize collateral damage. That such tactics, in line with the International Humanitarian Law, weren't consistently or committedly used in Afghanistan by the international security forces is a tragedy of its own, and, on its own part, contributed to the Taliban taking Afghanistan all over again in August 2021.

The point being, in this broader sense Hamas firing rockets from residential areas, storing weapons in hospitals and having built a full-fledged command and control bunker under a hospital are not necessarily difficult to prove using open source evidence, but are perhaps a matter for another thread. Nor do such breaches of humanitarian law on Hamas' side ethically justify the IDF use of highly disproportionate tactics in terms of their response.

Article:
White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby said that the United States has intelligence indicating that Hamas is using the Shifa Hospital in Gaza City for military purposes, possibly for weapon storage and also for holding captives.[69][70] National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan stated that "you can see even from open-source reporting that Hamas does use hospitals, along with a lot of other civilian facilities, for command-and-control, for storing weapons, for housing its fighters... this is Hamas' track record, both historically and in this conflict". According to another US official, "Hamas has a command node under the Al-Shifa hospital, uses fuel intended for it and its fighters regularly cluster in and around [it]."[71] The US assessment that Hamas and other Palestinian militants were operating within the Al-Shifa hospital included communication intercepts of fighters inside the complex.[72]

A top Hamas official stated in October 2023 that they are not responsible for the protection of civilians in Gaza, and that instead the UN and in particular Israel are responsible for this under international law given that it is the occupying power over the Occupied Palestinian Territories, which includes Gaza.[73]
 
For anyone interested in exactly that, probably the best modern case is Stanilav Galic during the Yugoslav wars. He made use of these activities within the problemed and specifically too the fear-raising and terror context. Some of the specific conclusions rested in here are used as specific precedent for/against things when assessing activities that may stray close to it (by some actors anyways). Definitely more of a nerd read though not super important to the discussion here.
https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2003/en/40194
"These activities" would be shelling and sniping, as per the indictment. I don't see leaflets mentioned.
 
and having built a full-fledged command and control bunker under a hospital are not necessarily difficult to prove using open source evidence, but are perhaps a matter for another thread.
Like you said perhaps better for another thread, but IIRC Israel claimed there was a command center under a hospital but the evidence they provided was incredibly weak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_military_use_of_al-Shifa_hospital
External Quote:
During the Israel–Hamas war, Israel and the United States[1][2] stated that a vast complex existed under al-Shifa hospital that was being used by Hamas as its "main operations base", which Hamas and hospital administrators denied.[3][4] Following Israel's release of video evidence on 22 November, multiple news agencies concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the use by Hamas of a command center,[5][6][7][8][9] while Haaretz concluded that Hamas did use the hospital for military purposes.[10] Amnesty International said on 23 November 2023 that "Amnesty International has so far not seen any credible evidence to support Israel's claim that al-Shifa is housing a military command centre" and that "theIsraeli military has so far failed to provide credible evidence" for the allegation
 
During the Israel–Hamas war, Israel and the United States[1][2] stated that a vast complex existed under al-Shifa hospital that was being used by Hamas as its "main operations base", which Hamas and hospital administrators denied.[3][4] Following Israel's release of video evidence on 22 November, multiple news agencies concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the use by Hamas of a command center,[5][6][7][8][9]

Parsing all these claims/OSINT would indeed deserve another thread since the AP source (annotation no. 5 in your citation) explicitly states:

"The Associated Press could not independently verify Hagari's claims."

Hagari is the Hamas rear admiral denying, predictably, the US/Israeli claim/evidence.

Be as it may, the Wikipedia article is flat out wrong in claiming that the referenced news agencies, at least with respect to the AP, "concluded" anything.
 
Not in e.g. World War II (fully accepting that you didn't claim that).
What would be your #1? Famine and disease? Got numbers for Gaza?

In WW2, German war-related civilian casualties (i.e. not counting the holocaust, or post-war expulsions) were overwhelmingly due to Allied strategic bombing. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki should qualify as air raids, too.
It is, however, likely that the handful of US civilian casualties were not caused by German air raids.
 
External Quote:
(Israeli) President Isaac Herzog said on Sunday that a Beirut gathering last week of top Hezbollah commanders that was bombed by Israel was convened to plan an attack on Israel like the devastating October 7 assault by Palestinian terror group Hamas.

His assertion matched media reports about the meeting and came the day after the Israel Defense Forces confirmed that it eliminated many of the top commanders of Hezbollah's elite Radwan Force in a Friday airstrike that collapsed the building where the meeting was being held.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/herzo...ing-to-plan-oct-7-style-invasion-when-killed/

Last week there was some discuss here as to why the Israelis chose the time/dates they did for the pager/walkie attacks. I've read/heard this story of a claimed pending Hezbollah attack from multiple sources this morning. It's unclear to me if the pager attacks a couple days prior to and in conjunction with Friday's highly successful airstrike were meant to jointly degrade Hezbollah's ability to carry our an previously planned, imminent Oct 7-style attack into northern Israel. That would make tactical sense.

This Times of Israel article says the terrorist leadership was meeting to "plan" an Oct 7 type attack "to be launched in the wake of" the pager attacks. If that's the case, meaning the meeting came about only as a result of the pager attacks, then everything happened fairly quickly. In short order, Hezbollah would have had to call the meeting with degraded comms, find and sweep a place to meet, get all the likely skittish participants there, arrange for security, etc. The Israelis would have had an equally short time to learn of the meeting, vet it through their intel analysts, mission plan and handle the logistics of such a strike, arrange for aircrew CSAR, etc. I have my doubts all that happened in a couple days.

I'm more inclined to believe the meeting was previously planned, perhaps to finalize and give the go ahead for an Oct 7 -style atrack. If the Israels got wind of an imminent attack and the finalizing leadership meeting, between the pagers and airstrikes, they preemptively gutted both the rank and file terrorists who would have carried out the attack and their bosses. If that's how it happened, the Israelis must have been overjoyed.
 
Last edited:
What would be your #1? Famine and disease?
(I've popped my meandering thoughts on the matter in a DM because I go way off-topic).

In WW2, German war-related civilian casualties (i.e. not counting the holocaust, or post-war expulsions) were overwhelmingly due to Allied strategic bombing. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki should qualify as air raids, too.
Undoubtedly true and correct in every respect.

Got numbers for Gaza?
Only the numbers estimated by mainstream news services. I get the impression that most casualties in Gaza have been caused by air attack, possibly a large majority, but I don't remember any breakdown of the numbers of casualties being reported.
 
Be as it may, the Wikipedia article is flat out wrong in claiming that the referenced news agencies, at least with respect to the AP, "concluded" anything.
Sounds a bit lame to quote AP news "but so far its search showed no signs of tunnels or a sophisticated command center."
A week later they did find something, but it was embarrassingly lame, the story was dropped soon afterwards, (there was a tunnel though) the evidence of a command center was near embarrassing.
'I was gonna reply here with my bit of 'real' info about hospitals 'bombed' but -- deleted --
I searched online & still no proof that there was a command center under the hospital, Far be it from me to speak for AP but I conclude the evidence shown by US intelligence and IDF is weaker than the evidence shown to justify the 2nd invasion of Iraq ala we're 'going for the weapons of mass destruction' war.
LilWabbit but if you have any evidence of a command center under this hospital link to it please

tangentially related as its also about an ongoing war, Not sure if this is the place but I think its good to share reality, speaking to a good mate yesterday, as I know theres a Finnish poster here. I applaud these Finnish guys, IIRC she was saying 3 of the cars still need modifications that were driven down from Finland, So if someone wants to helpout financially its all good (and legit) she writes in english

Source: https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1061938978966682&id=100054517696689&mibextid=WC7FNe&rdid=UWLAwt56sDQlyWmk

Ha "plan A, border crossing 1 hour" never put a time limit on this, first time (during current '22 war) it took 5 minutes going in since everyone was fleeing, I don't even think they looked at passport, going out complete opposite, last time similar (though took 30 mins at the border though that was slovak border IIRC)
Btw that reminds me as I didnt answer before I think @Mendel since you asked perhaps a year ago, I did ask about Bandera to multiple ppl, most froze or didn't want to talk about the subject, so he is known.
The only person I met that said he was a hero of Ukraine was a good mate (see picture of me and him) his father was killed in the woods near Sumy, his father was younger than me. He was excused from duty due to this fact before, but now?


death.jpg
 
Sounds a bit lame to quote AP news "but so far its search showed no signs of tunnels or a sophisticated command center."
A week later they did find something, but it was embarrassingly lame, the story was dropped soon afterwards, (there was a tunnel though) the evidence of a command center was near embarrassing.

Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF (something for the video experts here to analyze), these tunnels (note, plural) look far from "lame" and small. Al Jazeera had the audacity to call them "drainage". With beds, A/C, toilets, several interconnected rooms and hallways, electricity. Really.

I recommend watching the whole 8-minute video.


Source: https://youtu.be/vHOZSTjnrhw?si=dRqKje1-uA3mH49T


Love your Ukraine pics, mate.
 
Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF (something for the video experts here to analyze), these tunnels (note, plural) look far from "lame" and small.
External Quote:

It is arguably the most compelling evidence thus far that the IDF has offered that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital. It does not establish without a doubt that there is a command center under Gaza's largest hospital, but it is clear that there is a tunnel down below. Seeing what connects to that tunnel is absolutely critical.

A still from CCTV video released by the Israel Defense Forces that it says shows Hamas fighters bringing hostages into Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza on October 7.

VIDEO
IDF claims video shows hostages in Al-Shifa hospital

For Israel, the stakes could not be higher. Israel has publicly asserted for weeks, if not years, that Hamas has built terror infrastructure below the hospital. The ability to continue to prosecute the war in the face of mounting international criticism depends to a large extent on Israel being able to prove this point.

Hamas has repeatedly denied that there is a network of tunnels below Shifa hospital. Health officials who have spoken with CNN have said the same, insisting it is only a medical facility.

As is so rarely the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this answer truly is black and white. Either there is an underground series of tunnels below the hospital. Or there is not.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk/index.html

It might be worth noting that the source of the video you posted is the Economic Times, whose reliability as a source has been called into question.
External Quote:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/
 
External Quote:

It is arguably the most compelling evidence thus far that the IDF has offered that there may be a network of tunnels below the hospital. It does not establish without a doubt that there is a command center under Gaza's largest hospital, but it is clear that there is a tunnel down below. Seeing what connects to that tunnel is absolutely critical.

A still from CCTV video released by the Israel Defense Forces that it says shows Hamas fighters bringing hostages into Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza on October 7.
VIDEO
IDF claims video shows hostages in Al-Shifa hospital

For Israel, the stakes could not be higher. Israel has publicly asserted for weeks, if not years, that Hamas has built terror infrastructure below the hospital. The ability to continue to prosecute the war in the face of mounting international criticism depends to a large extent on Israel being able to prove this point.

Hamas has repeatedly denied that there is a network of tunnels below Shifa hospital. Health officials who have spoken with CNN have said the same, insisting it is only a medical facility.

As is so rarely the case in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this answer truly is black and white. Either there is an underground series of tunnels below the hospital. Or there is not.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/20/middleeast/gaza-tunnel-shaft-al-shifa-hospital-intl-hnk/index.html

It might be worth noting that the source of the video you posted is the Economic Times, whose reliability as a source has been called into question.
External Quote:

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
  • Overall, we rate the Economic Times Right-Center biased and Questionable based on numerous failed fact checks.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economic-times/

I have no doubt The Economic Times is partisan. Just as the CNN is, the FoxNews is, the MSNBC is. But to insist that the video they're featuring must therefore be fake, doctored or featuring something other than the tunnel network and rooms underneath Al Shifa hospital compound would be going way further. If that's your claim, state it openly.

The footage is evidence of something. MB is free to evaluate what it features and how authentically. But to summarily dismiss it because it's uploaded by a biased network that represents political tenets opposite to yours, or because it's filmed by IDF, would be unscientific and biased.
 
OK thanks the video does loop around FWIW and hard to see with fisheyed lens which makes everything seem bigger than it is ,
Now on this video there is evidence of something. One can argue if its a command center or not, but for me, yes you made your point, it doesn't look like it was not used much though?
Looking more, Its certainly not a command center, but I grant you its something that should not be there, thus you've convinced me in this point, What did Hamas say about this video?
 
OK thanks the video does loop around FWIW and hard to see with fisheyed lens which makes everything seem bigger than it is ,

Firstly, the tunnel network and the rooms aren't small as far as makeshift tunnels under constant adversary intelligence surveillance are concerned and limited access to tunnel-building provisions/materials/equipment are concerned. Have you seen Viet Cong tunnels? I've even been to some.

Secondly, it doesn't need to be big. Viet Cong tunnels were far smaller, more roughly-built, and very effective. And under full military use. Thirdly, parts of the Al Shifa hospital compound above ground were also allegedly part of the command and control center. Not just the underground parts.

Now on this video there is evidence of something. One can argue if its a command center or not, but for me, yes you made your point, it doesn't look like it was not used much though?

Article:
American intelligence agencies obtained information that Hamas fighters had evacuated the complex days before the multiday operation, destroying documents and electronics as they left, the senior intelligence official said.


Looking more, Its certainly not a command center,

In your opinion. One which does seem to stem from some political bias about which you've been quite open. Which is all well and good in a conversation, but insufficient as an unbiased expert analysis on the featured tunnels.

I've worked in the military since 2013 and have both worked inside, and visited, various underground command and control centers. You do not need that much in terms of space to execute basic command and control (C2) functions. C2 essentilly means a center and a system for exercising authority over military personnel for the purpose of directing forces to achieve missions objectives.

At its most basic C2 needs shelter from surveillance and air raids, electricity/signal for basic communications, access to food and water, some office equipment, quarters for lodging and maybe (but not even necessarily) some munitions storage space. There seems to be more than ample room for all of the above in the tunnel system featured in the video. What were you expecting? A NASA mission control center?

but I grant you its something that should not be there, thus you've convinced me in this point, What did Hamas say about this video?

Personally, I don't give two hoots what Hamas says about the video, or what The Economic Times journalists declare. I'm more interested in what the video actually features and to seek an answer to the question 'why would a hospital need such an underground facility other than it being used for/by Hamas for obvious military purposes?'

From the same NYT article dated 1 April 2024:

Article:
After the operation, the Israeli military took reporters to a shaft at the complex leading to a tunnel network. Later, the military showed the tunnels underneath the hospital.

White House officials at the time backed the Israeli assessment. "We have information that confirms that Hamas is using that particular hospital for a command and control node," John F. Kirby, a National Security Council spokesman, said on Nov. 14.

In the weeks since the operation, news organizations have continued to raise questions about Hamas's presence at the hospital. And health and humanitarian organizations have criticized the Israeli operation. A humanitarian team lead by the World Health Organization, which visited Al-Shifa immediately after Israeli forces stormed the hospital, called it a "death zone."

But the American intelligence assessment has remained firm that the hospital was used by Hamas. The new intelligence represents the most current American assessment, officials said.

The complex was used by both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad to command forces fighting against Israel, according to the intelligence.

While the spy agencies provided no visual evidence, a U.S. official said they were confident in their assessment because it was based on information collected by Israel and America's own intelligence, gathered independently.

Some had hoped that the operation to take the hospital could result in the rescue of some of the hostages taken by Palestinian fighters during their Oct. 7 attack on Israel. No hostages were rescued, but Israeli officials found the bodies of two hostages at or near the complex, officials have said.

The new American intelligence assessment says the Israeli assessment was at least partially correct that some hostages were held at or under the complex. But those hostages appear to have been moved as Hamas evacuated.
 
Firstly, the tunnel network and the rooms aren't small as far as makeshift tunnels under constant adversary intelligence surveillance are concerned and limited access to tunnel-building provisions/materials/equipment are concerned. Have you seen Viet Cong tunnels? I've even been to some.
Same here (and also not on a guided tour)
What were you expecting? A NASA mission control center?
No mate, just something more lived in, this looked like it had just been built and no one had actually been there. (*)
From when is this video? The same day that Israel went there (they must have that video right? maybe not initial raid but an hour later) or is it like a week or 2 later

(*) Sorry this makes me sound like a conspiracy nut, but watch the video again, if this was made the the same day then I am completely wrong & I aplooigize but if its a week or two later then (LilWabbit you got played)
- excuses (we have to secure the area to see if its safe )
- reality the area - in the video is tiny (high FOV makes it look bigger than it is)


EDIT --
One which does seem to stem from some political bias about which you've been quite open
What political bias? Just curious, I'm far left FWIW, extreme left perhaps
but mate this doesn't alter my opinion, Is Hamas or Hezbollah extreme left also? Personally I think screw those pricks, TBH I'm more pro Israel than the opposite, and to be really honest since this is triggering a memory I did write an opera when I was young about Israel, really a lifetime ago now maybe 40 years but back then I was making songs about anything, well it was more about Jews and germany. Dumb kid
Ha just had a google, you might find this interesting its one of my songs from that work, and for a bonus, and the picture yes I'm wearing a GI helmet in Vietnam, can't say if this was before or after visiting some tunnels with a mate from there (not a tour)

Source: https://soundcloud.com/zed-zeek/stupidfuck-1

EDIT part 2 -- Hmm now on this nostolgia phase, Im reminded of an old song of mine, I wrote in the early 90s. No lie these words are more than 30 years old

A solider amok shoots at kids on the bus
And the Israelis blaming it on the jordon government, its a world gone insane a world gone insane
Netanyahu saiz he wants peace but acts like he wants war,
is this what the people of Israel wanted is this what they voted for, A world gone insane, we've all gone insane

-----
30 years? whats happened? Well Netanyahu is still there, these lyrics could of been written today, hell prolly more apt today instead of when I wrote them in Keri Keri NZ 30 years ago
 
Last edited:
A more complete tour de tunnel a lá the IDF, starting at 1:30 mins. Men walking fully erect in tunnels unlike Viet Cong tunnels. Not small nor unused. Cleared, cleaned and emptied of course during Hamas evac before IDF operation. Facilities more than adequate for basic command and control. Not a hospital extension. Hospital as air raid shield.


Source: https://youtu.be/iVPgQpJQGlg?si=LncYBucC1KwrmbMw
 
The footage is evidence of something. MB is free to evaluate what it features and how authentically. But to summarily dismiss it because it's uploaded by a biased network that represents political tenets opposite to yours, or because it's filmed by IDF, would be unscientific and biased.
Well then, it's just as well I didn't DO that, isn't it? I've merely provided a grain of salt. You yourself said "Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF", and in these days of sophisticated fakes, one would be naïve to summarily accept it because it's uploaded by a network that shares your own political tenets.
 
As someone who's lived in 4 cities where forgotten-about tunnels have been discovered many years later (more than once where I currently am), I see the disconnect between "discovery of tunnels" and "recently used by Hamas" as an as-yet unproven leap. What's the most recent artefact found in the tunnels? The wiring that I saw wasn't screaming anything from recent decades - any switches/routers/bridges/repeaters or anything that could move its time of last use towards the modern day?
 
Well then, it's just as well I didn't DO that, isn't it? I've merely provided a grain of salt. You yourself said "Unless this footage is doctored by the IDF", and in these days of sophisticated fakes, one would be naïve to summarily accept it because it's uploaded by a network that shares your own political tenets.

Which is why I said it'd be interesting material for the MB video techies to dissect if you recall. As to partisan news agencies, their reporting on both sides annoy me somewhat, and creates unnecessary noise I need to constantly filter and ignore while reading/watching (including the tenor and some of the narratives spewed by the IDF commentator in the second video), but they never stop me from studying all sources' factual claims and videos as objectively as I can. (It is more difficult for those firmly embedded in a worldview of a political binary, the misleading narratives it creates and the strong bias it rouses to utterly eschew a priori 'the other side' and all their tainted sources.) The little I understand these videos do not seem fake. But it's possible they are. And obviously evidence provided by a warring party cannot be taken uncritically, undissected.

As to 'no evidence they were recently used by Hamas', we are stuck with the word of US intelligence services on communications intercepts gathered independently from Israeli intelligence, and implicating both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and thereby confirming US's earlier Al Shifa C2 suspicions. As to use of old technology, it's a tactical advantage as a back-up system for even the most modern militaries. It's a pain to learn to operate old military surplus radios amongst other outdated tech, I tell ya.

The absence of Hamas tech (new or old) in the tunnels is a given by the time of filming the tour and should be no surprise for quite a few reasons, and which obviously doesn't logically imply they had none or merely old tech before evacuation. Even mattresses and torn pieces of cloth, if Hamas were stupid enough to leave such things behind, would be under scrupulous IDF forensic study at the point of IDF filming in the tunnels securely.

To discover extensive military-style tunnels, rooms and electrical wiring underneath a hospital begs the real question. Why was it there? What's the most plausible explanation? How is the hospital not a type of human shield if indeed the tunnels were a C2?

Bomb shelters under/near hospitals have quite a different purpose and design, and must have the capacity to house far more people and beds. Bomb shelters (for bigger facilities) are generally designed for capacity.
 
Last edited:
As someone who's lived in 4 cities where forgotten-about tunnels have been discovered many years later (more than once where I currently am), I see the disconnect between "discovery of tunnels" and "recently used by Hamas" as an as-yet unproven leap.
"found a tunnel in Gaza" is a "dog bites man" story

the hard part is
a) showing that the tunnel was under the hospital, and not e.g. under an adjoining lot,
b) showing that the tunnel had a military purpose,
c) at the time.

Alternately, Israel could reveal the intelligence they used to justify that bombing.

And I'd like to know what the hospital's adminstration says about this evidence.
 
For comparison of how ostensibly modest a C2 might look and yet provide and effective base of operations for a sizeable military force, here are some pictures featuring the Củ Chi Tunnels in Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon). They're a popular tourist trap. These tunnels were used by the Viet Cong as its base of operations for the Tết Offensive.

Partial Design (doesn't encompass all):

Cu Chi Tunnels - Design.jpg


Entrance:

Cu Chi Tunnels - Tour Entrance.jpg


Command Center:

Cu Chi Tunnels - Command Center - Pic 2.JPG

Cu Chi Tunnels - Command Center.JPG


Here are some images of ISIS tunnels and command center.

And for a more upscale comparison (still somewhat modest since wartime operating conditions aren't meant to emulate Hilton), here are some images from the Cabinet War Rooms from where the entire Churchill cabinet operated and ran a country (i.e. much more than just a military C2):

Churchill War Rooms.jpg

Churchill War Rooms 2.JPG

Cabinet War Rooms - Plans.JPG
 
"found a tunnel in Gaza" is a "dog bites man" story

the hard part is
a) showing that the tunnel was under the hospital, and not e.g. under an adjoining lot,
b) showing that the tunnel had a military purpose,
c) at the time.

Alternately, Israel could reveal the intelligence they used to justify that bombing.

Valid concerns but revealing intel always risks exposing intel gathering methods and sources. It's especially risky during active operations. And yet it would indeed provide the best "direct" evidence for public scrutiny. Us having no access to such direct intel is therefore never automatically an indication of questionable intel.

Eliminating alternative plausible explanations is the likelier method for us to reach any measure of confidence. What are the plausible alternatives that aren't naive?
 
Valid concerns but revealing intel always risks exposing intel gathering methods and sources. It's especially risky during active operations. And yet it would indeed provide the best "direct" evidence for public scrutiny. Us having no access to such direct intel is therefore never automatically an indication of questionable intel.

Eliminating alternative plausible explanations is the likelier method for us to reach any measure of confidence. What are the plausible alternatives that aren't naive?
Ah, the "there's evidence, we just can't show you" card. I hear Lue's recruiting, drop him a note, you've got skillz.

Not showing the evidence might be best, though, as the previous post contained "evidence" of a tunnel network with a store room and a hospital *below the water table*.
 
Not showing the evidence might be best, though, as the previous post contained "evidence" of a tunnel network with a store room and a hospital *below the water table*.

You're obfuscating again, Fatty. Your skillset as press officer for Hamas religious wing is just as impressive. ;)

The video did not show anything that an operational military C2 would critically lack. I wonder if you even watched the longer video and the tunnel network it features. With your characteristically cryptic evasions you also did not offer any plausible alternative explanations for what the video actually features. The Viet Cong "hospital" is just a humble room with bunks and possibly cabinet/footlocker for drugs whereas Al Shifa is literally a hospital attached to a possible Hamas C2 below it. So you can strike 'no access to medical facility' right off your list of criticisms for the Al Shifa "not a C2" proposition. The VC store room is just a hole underground looking far more modest than the Al Shifa rooms and tunnels. In terms of the troop strength of VC, the CIA and US military observers in 1965 estimated between 50,000-60,000 regular VC forces and 80,000-120,000 irregular forces. Not a small outfit commanded from a humble command center.

What part of Pentagon/CIA/NSA, as a matter of standard intelligence rule, not exposing their intelligence data (such as Hamas/Islamic Jihad communication intercepts mentioned in the NYT article earlier) to public scrutiny reeks Lue?

In the case of Lue Pentagon denies the existence of any evidence. Ours is a diametrical opposite case, Fatty.
 
Last edited:
So you can strike 'no access to medical facility' right off your list of criticisms for the Al Shifa "not a C2" proposition.

And here we have concrete proof that you are prepared to simply make shit up. Show me that precise criticism on my list... heck, show me "my list".
 
Here is the latest alleged IDF leaflet (seems legit) urging evacuations ahead of yesterday's airstrikes in Bekaa in Southern Lebanon. The text is kinder in tone than the abortive and unauthorized Col. Avi Marciano leaflet, and absent of threats. However, the leaflet includes a barcode that raised immediate Hezbollah apprehensions on Israeli cyber-warfare, and cautioning residents not to scan the code.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AokfK_vVfSM


Screenshot from the video:

IDF Lebanon Barcode Leaflet.JPG


Google Translate Arabic to English:

Urgent warning to the residents of Bekaa. Hezbollah activity forces IDF to move against military positions in the village, and the IDF does not want to harm you. If you are in a building where Hezbollah weapons are located, you must leave the village within 2 hours and move 1,000 meters away or to the nearest central school, and do not return until you receive a new message. Anyone who is near Hezbollah facilities or weapons . . . he puts his lives and the lives of his family at risk.

IDF has also dropped barcoded leaflets in Gaza last year to ask for assistance in locating hostages.
 
Source: Reuters

Norwegian police has issued an international search request for Rinson Jose, a Norwegian-Indian man linked to the sale of pagers to the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah that exploded last week.

Jose, 39, disappeared while on a work trip to the U.S. last week. He is a founder of the Bulgarian company Norta Global Ltd that was reportedly part of the pager supply chain.

Jose declined to comment on the pagers when reached by phone last Wednesday, Sept. 18, and hung up when asked about the Bulgarian business. He did not return repeated calls and text messages.

Jose's Norwegian employer, DN Media Group, said he left for a conference in Boston on Sept. 17, and the company has not been able to reach him since Sept. 18.

In 2022, Jose founded Sofia-based company Norta Global Ltd, Bulgaria's corporate registry shows. Norway's security police (PST) also launched a preliminary investigation earlier this week into reports that a Norwegian-owned company was linked to the sale of the pagers.

Source: The Times of Israel

Local media reports said Sofia-based Norta Global Ltd had facilitated the sale of the pagers to Hezbollah. Citing security sources, national broadcaster bTV reported that 1.6 million euros related to the transaction passed through Bulgaria, and was sent to Hungary.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top