774
submitted 1 year ago by Five@slrpnk.net to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] blady_blah@lemmy.world 94 points 1 year ago

Honestly, the real question to me is how many innocent people were maimed, injured, or killed in this attack. This is incredibly indiscriminate, even though the idea is that only the bad guys are holding the pages or walkie-talkies, but if they're in a cafe they're not the only ones getting hurt. Think of it as attaching an explosive to a thousand Hezbollah people, and then exploding them as they wander through a city. That's the true crime, the potentially disproportionate massacre of innocent civilians.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 41 points 1 year ago

Honestly, the real question to me is how many innocent people were maimed, injured, or killed in this attack.

Quite a bit fewer than 0.1% of the individual detonations appear to have harmed anyone except the Hezbollah operative assigned to the pager, so this doesn’t actually appear to be a question. The attack was extremely discriminate and targeted.

but if they're in a cafe they're not the only ones getting hurt.

In every case in which one of these went off in a cafe, the intended target was the only one hurt.

That's the true crime, the potentially disproportionate massacre of innocent civilians.

But that isn’t what happened. The opposite happened.

[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 46 points 1 year ago

Several of the victims were children. They went off in crowds. There was no way they could control that many devices with precision when they set them off all at once like that.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 17 points 1 year ago

https://x.com/osint613/status/1837614316335648888?s=46

Here’s an example of how targeted the strike was, despite literally going off in a crowd - nobody hurt but the intended target, no harm whatsoever beyond two feet. Doesn’t even bruise an apple

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 32 points 1 year ago

That particular pager was in a bag, against a person, pointed away from anyone or anything else. Not to mention anything of the second attack, which used much larger charges and started fires and blew out windows across Lebanon.

And anyway, a single example isn't going to assuage anyone who has been reading reports of women and children dying from the attack.

[-] prole 13 points 1 year ago

They're also ignoring the literal terror being experienced by civilians who witnessed people's legs and faces being blown off in public.

That's terrorism.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 year ago

That particular pager was in a bag, against a person, pointed away from anyone or anything else.

Where else would you carry a pager? You have to feel it when it vibrates.

Not to mention anything of the second attack, which used much larger charges and started fires and blew out windows across Lebanon.

Well, I’m sorry to hear that Lebanon’s glazers just got several months of guaranteed work, I guess, but I’m otherwise not sure why this is relevant.

And anyway, a single example isn't going to assuage anyone who has been reading reports of women and children dying from the attack.

What reports?

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 18 points 1 year ago

I’m otherwise not sure why this is relevant.

Because you were claiming the explosions were too small to "bruise and apple"

What reports?

Literally any reports on the subject

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

Because you were claiming the explosions were too small to "bruise and apple"

ok, and how is that refuted by the physical description of an ambulance?

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 12 points 1 year ago

What the fuck are you smoking

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago

You posted a description of an ambulance, down to the color of its lights and the presence of people standing nearby looking on.

What was the relevance of that?

[-] prole 13 points 1 year ago

The mental gymnastics people will do to defend literal state sponsored terrorism.

And don't waste your time, I actually know what those words mean.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Yes, it’s pretty shocking how people have come out in support of an Iranian-funded terrorist group that has killed women, children, and a hundred Americans

[-] prole 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Try harder.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago

Several of the victims were children.

The fathers of these dead children will simply have to live with the terrible consequences of their involvement with antisemitic terror (who are we kidding, they don’t care.)

They went off in crowds.

In every such case only the agent was harmed. You’re proving how targeted the attack was.

[-] Stubb@lemmy.sdf.org 37 points 1 year ago

The fathers of these dead children will simply have to live with the terrible consequences of their involvement with antisemitic terror

So the children have to pay for their father's crimes? This isn't really a justification, and they don't not care, now they have a real reason for retaliation—starting the cycle of hate all over again.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

So the children have to pay for their father's crimes?

No, they don’t have to. But they will when their fathers deliberately put them in danger.

Again, he’ll just have to live with the tragic consequences (just kidding, we know he doesn’t care.)

[-] AreaSIX@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And you complain about pro Israel accounts getting banned. Literally justifying the murder of children should be banable no matter what county you're supporting. Despicable behavior that everyone now sadly expects from rabid genocide supporters.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 28 points 1 year ago

The kid's blood is still on whoever triggered the devices hands. The child didn't do anything.

Do you have a source stating that no bystanders were harmed? I can't find anything making that claim.

[-] irreticent@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Do you have a source stating that no bystanders were harmed?

They keep citing a tweet while others keep refuting what they're saying with articles from BBC, NPR, and other news outlets. There's no point in arguing with someone that can't provide reputable sources for their claims.

*Edit: typo

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

At least it was somewhat targeted, unlike Gaza.

[-] Rozauhtuno 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Ok, I'm sure it's all as you say. 5 days old account that is totally not suspicious.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

Defending Israel on Lenny leads to banning, it’s happened several times

[-] Strawberry 13 points 1 year ago
[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago
[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 7 points 1 year ago

Says Hezbollah, and all reporting from Lebanon.

[-] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

Source? Not being shitty but serious

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

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

[-] M0oP0o@mander.xyz 25 points 1 year ago

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)

load more comments (37 replies)
[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago
[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 8 points 1 year ago

I can’t have sympathy for murderous antisemites

[-] Mihies@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago

Looks like murders of innocent civilians were done by semites... As it's most often the case.

[-] crashfrog@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

A collateral civilian death during a military action has never been considered “murder.” It can’t be, since it’s unintentional.

[-] kittenzrulz123 7 points 1 year ago

There has been quite a lot of collateral civilian casualties, how many more people must die and how many more people must suffer under poverty in the name of the great American empire?

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] prole 7 points 1 year ago

Just completely ignore the concept of proportional response and the Principle of Proportionality.

If you're going to pretend to be an expert on international law...

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Agree, I am incredibly disturbed by the nature of this attack and the implications for how other countries might use this idea.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
774 points (100.0% liked)

News

36491 readers
2136 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS