Comment by einszwei

Many people fail to see this because they have an intact moral core. Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians.

Israel has utilized a rate of expected civilian to militant casualties in Gaza at the rate of 100:1 [1].

[1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/

There are many points on this grey line, and we often fail to recognise those in the middle. For example, between your two points is a very significant type of action that this one may well fall under: an attack on a military target that you are fully aware will result in significant collateral damage.

What on earth would be more targeted than compromising pagers that only Hezbollah military is using?

At some point the criticism really gets absurd. There probably was collateral damage, yes. This is what you have to account for if you start wars against another nation. Repeatedly.

Opposite of targeted are the missiles that hit northern Israel.

In terms of collateral damage it seems much better than even the most precise missiles, though.

2000+ bombs hurting 2000 fighters and one child? I'd argue that almost no war is without collateral damage, but this one action might be uniquely low in the amount of collateral damage done.

> This is anecdotal and misleading

I saw 5 videos and in every case only the person carrying the pager was hurt. Even people less than a foot away weren't harmed. Look at the video on the front page of nytimes.com right now to see what it's like. Highly targeted at Hizbullah soldiers, no bystanders hurt. The exact opposite of "indiscriminate".

You're working yourself up into some righteous anger about this, which is fine, that's your choice. But at least recognise that that's what you're doing. You need a certain narrative to be true so you're twisting facts to suit that.

I know there is a documented case of a non-involved person getting injured, but do you have evidence that this attack was not 99% effective? The attack vector was the device specifically used only by involved people.

Incredible, Israel can use tiny bombs in the personal possession of terrorists and they'll still be accused of warcrimes.

What is the quantity? Reports are the beepers were purchased directly by Hezbollah for their use.

[flagged]

Who though? Who, exactly?

I wonder if it would endanger the plane. A 20g explosive sitting in the pocket of a person will clearly cause serious injury, but I am unsure if it has penetration power to actually go through the plane body. I am reminded of mythbusters experiments with small amount of explosives to block up doors, but I don't recall how much they needed in the end.

Most of the flight would be out of range and I’m not even sure that explosion would take out a plane. Plus it would probably be powered off because Hezbollah is serious about flight safety.

I was thinking about this, but then it probably wouldn't even get past a security xray scan. Which makes me think, in the 5 or so months these were reported to being in the wild, one never boarded a plane?

Do we know whether or not they embedded gps tracking into the bombs?

I would think they would have that ability, not just to avoid a horrible accident like blowing up a plane, but also to gather valuable tracking intel on a terrorist organization.

A pager wouldn’t have been able to connect to any networks at altitude.

> running on them with tanks while their families must watch https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35

Wow. Just, wow!.

They run a tank over the mother until assassinate her in front of their four children? Really?

I'm speechless. This is an absolutely hideous act

[dead]

> jailing kids forever for throwing stones

This isn't happening. Kids are being jailed for throwing stones, yes. Just like you or I would be jailed if we threw a rock at a cop. But it is not "forever".

>This is an indiscriminate attack.

It’s the opposite. They discriminated carefully.

Perhaps you mean to say innocent bystanders also were collateral damage, which certainly seems true also.

> This is false. Many innocents are killed including children

That article - just like all other sources - mentions one 8-year-old girl, not "many innocents" and not several children either. Hence, this is deliberate misinformation.

> You can't determine where the device is when the bomb is activated.

You absolutely can. It's highly likely to be in the targeted person's pocket. Where else would it be?

After all, people usually don't hand their phones to random strangers or leave them lying around - and those pagers aren't even mere personal devices used for private purposes. Why would any of those devices end up anywhere else but the pocket of the person using it?

> This is an indiscriminate attack.

Launching rockets at civilians is. Blowing up pagers explicitly used for terrorist activities isn't.

> Why is Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel?

Hezbollah states that their aims include destroying Israel, instilling a Muslim government in the land, and converting the people to Islam.

They have explicitly said that they will never coexist peacefully.

Hezbollah is firing rockets to conduct terrorism on the civilian population living in the area. Are you are OK with terrorism if you feel it's justified?

And you don’t mention Iran

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Why is Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel?

Why, Israel sent them a page and they are merely returning the call, as would be the right thing to do among polite company.

It absolutely alleviates the situation. The rockets were going to be fired either way. Now with a few dead, a bunch of wounded, and a communication channel disabled, it's going to be harder to coordinate future rocket attacks.

[flagged]

Sure, except Moses and the Jewish people were on the land around 1500 BC, and the Islamic religion didn't start until after 500 CE. So the Jewish people got there at least 2000 years earlier, so if we are doing the "who ethnically cleansed who" game, I think the Jewish people appear to be at most, reversing the previous ethnic cleansing? Or is there some kind of moral "expiry date" on ethnic cleansing?

Ah so indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians is OK if you like the reason for it. Heck of a stance to take.

Unfortunate typo. I assume you meant ethnically not ethically.

There are two million Arabs and Muslims living as citizens of Israel.

They have more rights in Israel than they would in any Arab nation.

Gaza was handed back entirely to Palestinian rule in 2005. Everything Jewish was removed, even graves.

Violently expanding into Gaza?

You don't know even the most basic facts.

Israel left Gaza. It gave the Palestinians what they wanted. Their own area with no settlers. Israel forcefully removed all of its people from all of Gaza.

In exchange they immediately voted in a terrorist organization as their government and began to attack Israel over and over again.

There are like 20% Arabs among Israel citizens. The are about 20 (not %, just 20) Jews in Lebanon. Who's ethnically cleansing whom again?

Both Jews and Palestinian Arabs have legitimate claims against each other. The levels of barbarity in pursuing these claims is not even remotely comparable.

How is it ethnically cleansed if 20% of the Israeli population is native?

Yes. Except there are credible reports of Israel also doing this in the past. "Israeli fighter planes have also attempted to kill children by dropping thousands of booby-trapped toys on Lebanese villages and towns. The Israeli occupying forces have used this method through the years and continue to do so, the most recent example being when booby-trapped toys were dropped on the town of Nabatiyah, killing and injuring children and permanently disfiguring others." https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-180386/ https://www.lorientlejour.com/article/227779/Mariam%252C_res...

So you can guarantee every single pager went to a solider of war? By that logic, soldiers in the Ukraine war also use cellphones and drones so it's A-OKAY to implant bombs in those products too?

Well we're up to two children dead

It's a bit silly to think the Ukrainians would do something like this, because any such thing would instantly lose them the war as all western support is withdrawn.

Russia meanwhile... they just seem like they want to see the world burn. Given the fact they're fighting using convicted criminals, it doesn't seem all that far fetched.

I think it is more telling you made that assumption.

To a point, but it's spot checks at best; a state actor has full access to the wide range of explosive compounds, surely there's some that wouldn't be detected (or that can be handled and packaged in such a way that it doesn't get detected)?

The explosive scanning is the thing where they pull some people out of line and run a wand over you and your gear, then put it into a machine and wait a few seconds for the analysis.

Or that these Unit 8200 alumni aren't dismissed "C-players", not good enough for them?