You must be kidding me...
1. The first article is from Reuters, which has their headquarters in the UK.
Reuters reported that the mayor and 16 more are killed. Then it quoted various people. It doesn't disprove my hypothesis that the mayor and those 16 are Hezbollah members\allies
The 2nd article is from British Broadcasting Corporation, which is also from the UK.
Same as above. They report a mix of facts and statements.
3. The BBC article quotes Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert who appears to be Dutch.
Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert called the killing of mayor Ahmad Kahil “alarming” and said any violations of international humanitarian law were “completely unacceptable”
Again, did I reject the fact that mayor was killed? "Alarming" and "completely unacceptable" are not facts. Those are opinions.
The most important part is that statements are still statements be it from Hezbollah, Lebanon, European politicians, UN, Israel, Russia, Pope or whoever. Don't call statements from sources you like facts.
5. In my opinion, it is disrespectful of you to continue to fan-fiction these deceased people as "Hezbollah members planned how to counter the Israeli attack in the safety of a civilian building". I think it is normally looked down upon to call people terrorists with no evidence.
Presumption of innocence is a legal principle for courts not for personal opinions. One has all the right to assume someone's guilt based on available information and express their opinion - it is called free speech. As I said before - in corrupted partially (or non) democratic countries, mayors are rarely not-affilated with the source of corruption. It is not how the world works.