They are asking for the source of your statement that less then 0.1% of the victims where valid targets. Since most have seen evidence to the exact opposite of that statement.
Oh and although I can put links to back that statement up, I will not. (Since that is the presiding fashion here apparently)
When asked for a source, you’re asked to link to a specific statement or report. If you just say who is your source without providing a link, it looks like not only do you don’t have any, but that you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about.
It’s extremely damaging to your side, no matter where the truth is.
When asked for a source, you’re asked to link to a specific statement or report.
Sounds like a real pain in the ass, and a bad-faith way to move a great deal of burden to someone you’d like to shut up. I told you what the source was; why don’t you do your own fucking homework?
The same Hezbollah that claim this was an “act of war” and in nothing I can find give any indication of non Hezbollah casualties? Once again I can link the translated statement from Hezbollah to support this, but since you for some reason will not neither will I.
Oh and to show this is not a lack of effort by myself here is a link to the information on Vitamin D toxicity
You wrote that fewer than .1% of casualties from the detonations were not hezbollah. When asked for a source you wrote: hezbollah. When pressed for a source you’ve now countered: “why would hezbollah report that?”.
We don’t know; it’s your premise. Where did you get that stat?
Says who?
Says Hezbollah, and all reporting from Lebanon.
Source? Not being shitty but serious
Hezbollah publicly announces their war casualties so they’re the source
I don’t know how to explain that any more clearly. If you’re still puzzled, I recommend asking a question instead of posting a single word
They are asking for the source of your statement that less then 0.1% of the victims where valid targets. Since most have seen evidence to the exact opposite of that statement.
Oh and although I can put links to back that statement up, I will not. (Since that is the presiding fashion here apparently)
Hezbollah is the source. That’s three times I’ve said so. What about that is still unclear?
When asked for a source, you’re asked to link to a specific statement or report. If you just say who is your source without providing a link, it looks like not only do you don’t have any, but that you don’t have any idea of what you’re talking about.
It’s extremely damaging to your side, no matter where the truth is.
Sounds like a real pain in the ass, and a bad-faith way to move a great deal of burden to someone you’d like to shut up. I told you what the source was; why don’t you do your own fucking homework?
The same Hezbollah that claim this was an “act of war” and in nothing I can find give any indication of non Hezbollah casualties? Once again I can link the translated statement from Hezbollah to support this, but since you for some reason will not neither will I.
Oh and to show this is not a lack of effort by myself here is a link to the information on Vitamin D toxicity
Your argumentation genuinely made me lol, thanks for that. I especially enjoyed the vitamin d article substitution
Why would Hezbollah report non-Hezbollah casualties? They’re not the government of Lebanon.
You wrote that fewer than .1% of casualties from the detonations were not hezbollah. When asked for a source you wrote: hezbollah. When pressed for a source you’ve now countered: “why would hezbollah report that?”.
We don’t know; it’s your premise. Where did you get that stat?
Didn’t you say they were the ones who reported your non-Hezbollah casualty figure though?
You could just link to what you’re talking about, that might clear up any confusion.
Yes, and that would be why we are wondering how that would be proof of a lack of non-Hezbollah casualties.
For propaganda, they reported the girl dying right away