The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.
invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.
Is the headline factually wrong?
Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something.
idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?
like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.
“Lebanese politicians urgently called on the international community to pressure Israel to stop its advance into Lebanese territory on Tuesday, as Israeli troops crossed into southern Lebanon in an operation targeting Hezbollah outposts.”
“This is not an incursion, this is an invasion,” Najat Aoun Saliba, a Lebanese member of parliament, told NPR. “We’ve been invaded by another country and we have to call on the international community to call it as such.”
“Saliba urged world leaders to call on Israel to put an immediate end to its military offensive in Lebanon.”
ok cool so this is basically the equivalent of MTG claiming that there are jewish space lasers.
Is it? Could you please enlighten me? I admit, I’m a bit ignorant of the politics over there.
To me, it seems like it’s a clear violation of a nation’s sovereignty. As a US citizen, I can’t imagine Mexico bombing us for private actors for distributing guns to the cartels, for example. Even if the government itself was responsible for distrubuting arms to the cartels (which actually may very well be the case), I still don’t see the justification for bombing US apartment complexes.
if you’re asking about the technicalities involved in Lebanon and Hezbollah in regards to the recent escalation of Israel. I’m not super sure on it so don’t take it as a source of authority here.
But Hezbollah is a political group and militia, I assume it operates with the permission of the Lebanese government, if it does it’s essentially an extension of the federal government, however it has it’s own isolated structure and supply routes, so it’s not the literal federal government in that sense.
I think the analogy here would be a state backed military force. Under the 2nd amendment the US federal government allows states to have their own militias to act as a separate force vector from the federal US military, i assume this probably extends in some form to police, and special tactical units but those are relatively irrelevant here.
So i would assume Hezbollah is similar in concept to a state national guard for example. Lebanon has a couple modes of response here, the obvious one is do nothing, let Hezbollah deal with it. It’s their problem anyway. The second would be to send a federal military force over to that area to bolster the support of Hezbollah against Israel. They could also mobilize the national military as well more generally, things like the air force, and mobile artillery units for example. They could also theoretically send materiel to Hezbollah for them specifically to use as well.
From the basically zero information that i understand about Lebanese government all three of these would be valid and reasonable responses, considering that Israel is quite literally doing an on ground operation here.
I imagine that the Lebanese government could probably draft a declaration of war over this event, however i wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t consider Israel shows no signs of taking that potential event lightly, so Hezbollah is probably an effective “internal proxy war” against Israel here. Though of course this also depends on how aggressive Israeli actions are, if they’re targeting Hezbollah specifically you probably won’t hear much, if they start getting past Hezbollah and doing some goofy shit, you can expect a pretty quick and aggressive mobilization i would think.
As for how this works related to the member of parliament here, from what i understand a member of parliament is roughly equivalent to a congressman in the US. Elected by a local body of people, for a local body of legislative representation. If the claims of an “invasion” were coming from a prime minister, or high up military figure head, or something of that effect i would be more inclined to buy that particular statement. Because a member of parliament can basically say anything, the only real significant capacity they have is representation in legislation and whatever policies they push for.
The point here is that Israel is invading, but the Times was too compromised to call it an invasion. Usually when someone says “sends troops” to another country it’s to help after an earthquake or flood or fire or something. When someone invades with troops it’s called an invasion. The Times has a long history of unreasonably downplaying the violent actions of the Israeli government specifically, while using plain straightforward language in other conflicts, which demonstrates bias.
invasion colloquially would be considered a more official declaration of war, idk if israel has acknowledged this, and if lebanon hasn’t acknowledged this at all themselves, than i feel like calling it a literal invasion is probably a little bit presumptuous here.
Is the headline factually wrong?
idk about this one chief, isn’t it usually “sends aid” or “send aid” do you have any examples of this?
like to be clear here, you’re claiming that the NYT title is biased, but then proposing an equally biased term to replace it. I would rather the title just be neutral. The headlines are useless anyway.
edit: removed a weird bit.
Lebanon is urging the international community to recognize it as an invasion: https://www.npr.org/2024/10/01/nx-s1-5134606/lebanon-israel-invasion-hezbollah-international-support
“Lebanese politicians urgently called on the international community to pressure Israel to stop its advance into Lebanese territory on Tuesday, as Israeli troops crossed into southern Lebanon in an operation targeting Hezbollah outposts.”
“This is not an incursion, this is an invasion,” Najat Aoun Saliba, a Lebanese member of parliament, told NPR. “We’ve been invaded by another country and we have to call on the international community to call it as such.”
“Saliba urged world leaders to call on Israel to put an immediate end to its military offensive in Lebanon.”
ok cool so this is basically the equivalent of MTG claiming that there are jewish space lasers.
Is it? Could you please enlighten me? I admit, I’m a bit ignorant of the politics over there.
To me, it seems like it’s a clear violation of a nation’s sovereignty. As a US citizen, I can’t imagine Mexico bombing us for private actors for distributing guns to the cartels, for example. Even if the government itself was responsible for distrubuting arms to the cartels (which actually may very well be the case), I still don’t see the justification for bombing US apartment complexes.
if you’re asking about the technicalities involved in Lebanon and Hezbollah in regards to the recent escalation of Israel. I’m not super sure on it so don’t take it as a source of authority here.
But Hezbollah is a political group and militia, I assume it operates with the permission of the Lebanese government, if it does it’s essentially an extension of the federal government, however it has it’s own isolated structure and supply routes, so it’s not the literal federal government in that sense.
I think the analogy here would be a state backed military force. Under the 2nd amendment the US federal government allows states to have their own militias to act as a separate force vector from the federal US military, i assume this probably extends in some form to police, and special tactical units but those are relatively irrelevant here.
So i would assume Hezbollah is similar in concept to a state national guard for example. Lebanon has a couple modes of response here, the obvious one is do nothing, let Hezbollah deal with it. It’s their problem anyway. The second would be to send a federal military force over to that area to bolster the support of Hezbollah against Israel. They could also mobilize the national military as well more generally, things like the air force, and mobile artillery units for example. They could also theoretically send materiel to Hezbollah for them specifically to use as well.
From the basically zero information that i understand about Lebanese government all three of these would be valid and reasonable responses, considering that Israel is quite literally doing an on ground operation here.
I imagine that the Lebanese government could probably draft a declaration of war over this event, however i wouldn’t be surprised if they didn’t consider Israel shows no signs of taking that potential event lightly, so Hezbollah is probably an effective “internal proxy war” against Israel here. Though of course this also depends on how aggressive Israeli actions are, if they’re targeting Hezbollah specifically you probably won’t hear much, if they start getting past Hezbollah and doing some goofy shit, you can expect a pretty quick and aggressive mobilization i would think.
As for how this works related to the member of parliament here, from what i understand a member of parliament is roughly equivalent to a congressman in the US. Elected by a local body of people, for a local body of legislative representation. If the claims of an “invasion” were coming from a prime minister, or high up military figure head, or something of that effect i would be more inclined to buy that particular statement. Because a member of parliament can basically say anything, the only real significant capacity they have is representation in legislation and whatever policies they push for.