Tim (formerly Of Tams)

🚨Library of congress deleted history! 1866 congressional doc where originator of 14th said foreigners or aliens do not get birthright citizenship. Everyone save a copy NOW, History deleted! web.archive.org/web/2017022821…

🚨BREAKING: President Donald Trump is expected to sign a sweeping executive order aimed at cracking down on mail-in voting, escalating his long-running effort to restrict voting access ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. democracydocket.com/news-alerts/tr…

Tell me you've never worked in a military intelligence community or targeting enterprise without actually saying so. It absolutely IS unreasonable to "ask IDF to present clear & convincing evidence that this journalist operated" as a #Hezbollah fighter. And if you had spent even one day conducting intel or targeting activities, you would know that - and understand why. I've done both @USArmy rather than @IDF, but general principles related to intel & targeting activities are fairly similar across enterprises. Since I'm way more familiar with #USA rather than @Israel doctrinal publications, I'll draw from 🇺🇸 material. Most isn't widely available, but there is enough public domain material to cover general intel principles. For us, the foundational pub is EO 12333, which provides structure, guidance & responsibilities for various 🇺🇸 intelligence community (IC) activities. As the very first line of EO 12333 indicates, "Timely, accurate, and insightful information about the activities, capabilities, plans, and intentions of foreign powers, organizations, and persons, and their agents, is essential to" national security (pic 1). To accomplish that goal, military IC elements are assigned 4 general tasks (also pic 1). If you spend even a few seconds studying this guidance, you'll notice that informing the general public is not an assigned task of the IC. We exist to provide "timely, accurate, and insightful information" to support official decision-making processes, not wade into public affairs. "But, why not just release this information to the public as 'evidence' so we understand why you targeted this terrorist?" seems to be a question at the core of your "not unreasonable" comment. And this is why it's so obvious you know nothing about actual IC & targeting activities. Not only is that not our job, but releasing "evidence" to the public risks burning our sources & methods. By "burning" I mean compromising the effectiveness of that source/method by informing the adversary (along with the public) exactly how we determined a person/object should be targeted. For human sources, compromising them can literally cost them their lives. Speaking of HUMINT, there are 6 basic types of intelligence collection - with human intel being 1 of the 6 (pic 2). Each type works together within the IC to develop actionable intelligence to inform decision-making within our various echelons of command or areas of responsibility. Just as all 6 function in the IC, releasing "evidence" to the public that was gathered using any of these types can gradually be pieced together by adversaries using the "mosaic" method of intel collection. Releasing "evidence" on just one target may or may not be enough to burn a source. But publicizing this intel becomes a trend, it's more likely that enough information will be available to the adversary (who is monitoring open source intel) to gradually figure out a specific source or method...and then it is burned by the mosaic effect. Not to mention the sheer volume of targets we're talking about. How many strikes has 🇮🇱 conducted in Gaza & southern Lebanon alone since 10/7? How many have 🇺🇸 + 🇮🇱 carried out so far in Ops Epic Fury/Roaring Lion? I don't have enough info to quantify those figures, but both are easily in the thousands. Even when a full explanation of a targeting decision is released to the public on occasion, hundreds of staffhours go into redacting & prepping & briefing a package each time. Militaries aren't staffed to do that work at scale...nor should they be since our focus is warfighting. Regarding Shaib specifically, @LTC_Shoshani announced he "posed a tangible threat to the lives of IDF troops in southern Lebanon" (link in 1st reply). You can choose to believe that. Or not. But it IS "unreasonable to ask IDF to present clear & convincing evidence" Shaib was #Hezbollah. If you think otherwise, then you clearly don't understand intelligence activities or military targeting operations.

Convicted pedophile says "fuck off with this click-bait bullshit you’re posting" while posting a steaming heap of click-bait bullshit. Now I have seen it all. Ritter may claim to have "done combat targeting at the state, operational and tactical level," but it's obvious he knows fuckall about the law of armed conflict. How can you tell? Easy. Start with this...insightful claim: "When a suspected war crime is committed, there is a duty and responsibility to inform the public." I mean, he's right...in the way that a broken clock is right twice a day. But the threshold requirement is that a suspected war crime HAS been committed. And that's where Scott's...colorful commentary goes off the rails. Because he goes on to claim "deliberate targeting of a journalist is a war crime." Close...but not quite accurate. What he should have said is civilians are protected from being made the object of attack "unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities." That's what international law actually says (pic 1). Although neither #USA nor @Israel have ratified the conventional (treaty) source of that rule, both recognize it as customary & both implement some version of the rule in their fundamental targeting doctrine. So, when is "deliberate targeting of a journalist" NOT a war crime? That's right! For such time as the "journalist" is ALSO a civilian taking a direct part in hostilities (DPH). Then, it's not a "war crime." It's just...targeting. An activity Ritter claims to have done "at the state, operational and tactical level." Maybe that's true. Who knows? But he obviously wasn't very good at his job if he thinks deliberately targeting a "journalist" who is also DPH is a "war crime." Whether one believes it or not, the explanation by @IDF for attacking Shaib is that he was posing as a journalist but was actually a #Hezbollah operative. That means he was assessed anyway to be civilian DPH. And so deliberately targeting him was NOT a war crime. So if directing an attack against a civilian DPH isn't actually a war crime, any guesses what that does to Ritter's claim that, "When a suspected war crime is committed, there is a duty and responsibility to inform the public"? That's right. No "suspected war crime" means no "duty and responsibility to inform the public." But wait! How do we know when a "journalist" is ALSO a civilian DPH?!? I can already hear it now, so read on. As far as I know, the doctrinal IDF DPH standard isn't released to the public - just the fundamental "for such time as, direct part" rule. But I also know from previous experience their standard is pretty similar to @DeptofWar version. And DoD Law of War Manual presents fairly thorough coverage of what does - and does not - qualify as DPH at least by our interpretation. As our doctrine conveys, DPH "includes certain acts that ... effectively and substantially contribute to an adversary’s ability to conduct or sustain combat operations" (pic 2). And one of the specific activities the Manual explicitly considers DPH is "providing or relaying information of immediate use in combat operations" (pic 3). Which is precisely what @LTC_Shoshani said about Shaib. So if IDF doctrine is similar to ours (which, it is), then deliberately attacking this "journalist" was NOT a war crime. Same is true for the Kunduz attack he references. I've studied & written about that incident at great length (will include a sample in 1st reply). So I know it was never investigated as a "war crime" from the outset (pic 4). But since Ritter knows fuckall about LOAC, he's free to spout off any erroneous bullshit and seemingly actually believe he's proving someone wrong. Here's my challenge to you, Scotty boy. Next time you show up in my mentions, have something constructive to say. While I have better things to do with my time, I also don't mind exposing you as the ignorant fraud that you are when you DO show up with this bullshit dressed up as informed commentary.

@BrianCox_RLTW My challenge to the ostensible lawyer: Call me convicted pedophile to my face. Not only are you legally incorrect. But there are consequences to actions done in person that don’t manifest themselves behind the cover of a keyboard.