Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)NO
Posts
0
Comments
1,247
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I think it's pretty funny that you regularly post news articles that entirely destroy your entire position, except for perhaps some sole sentence of paragraph which you need. (Even that's not the case here, there's nothing about a US base being used to train anyone, let alone HTS)

    In this case if you'd spend even one minute reading your lovely article you'd see the errors in your previous posts here

  • Israel is the party which has been bombing Syria lately. Lebanese people even back fled to Syria.

    Do you think they were bombing Aleppo, or Damascus?

    Maybe you should travel to the the region and explain everyone who they should be aligned with / against in order to make your posts make sense

  • What makes you think they are heavily aligned with America? HTS is largely the continuation of al-Nusra, al-Qaeda aligned. Them and the US mostly ignored and avoided eachother as they were both fighting different enemies: the former the Assad regime and the latter ISIS.

  • That depends on the angle you're viewing this from. Under the agreement, Hezbollah is not permitted to have infrastructure of weapon storages south of the Litani. Their personnel is not permitted to operate south of the Litani. This means that you could argue that most (?) of these incidents which the New Arab counts as violations were, in fact, an enforment of the ceasefire... Preferably this should be done by the Lebanese army or UN troops but apparently Hezbollah agreed that Israel would be allowed to do it themselves.

  • Sure I know there were a lot of friendly fire incidents.

    But you said that the IDF "did the vast (capitalized) majority of damage".

    Now you seem to have dialed that down quite a bit to "a significant amount of damage" and with the disclaimer "there's no way to know that". So that makes you wonder why you're making these changes when asked to support your previous argument?