Intentionally killing 8 year old girls is funny

[anotherneil]

At least that was the attitude on WMAL's O'Connor & Company radio show this morning with co-host Julie Gunlock.

They were discussing this exploding pagers incident in Lebanon & Syria, and while doing so, they're snickering and having a laugh about it, while talking about Mossad intercepting this shipment of pagers and rigging them to explode.

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

I don't know if anyone involved in either side of this conflict with Israel think that the killing of the young children of their opponents is funny, but I don't think it's funny, I don't think that 8 year old girl's family think it's funny, and I don't think anyone would appreciate it if someone thought that the intentional killing of their 8 year old daughter was funny.

 

[Revoltingest]

At least that was the attitude on WMAL's O'Connor & Company radio show this morning with co-host Julie Gunlock.

They were discussing this exploding pagers incident in Lebanon & Syria, and while doing so, they're snickering and having a laugh about it, while talking about Mossad intercepting this shipment of pagers and rigging them to explode.

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

I don't know if anyone involved in either side of this conflict with Israel think that the killing of the young children of their opponents is funny, but I don't think it's funny, I don't think that 8 year old girl's family think it's funny, and I don't think anyone would appreciate it if someone thought that the intentional killing of their 8 year old daughter was funny.

She was just a Muslim.
No real loss.

 

[Kenny]

At least that was the attitude on WMAL's O'Connor & Company radio show this morning with co-host Julie Gunlock.

They were discussing this exploding pagers incident in Lebanon & Syria, and while doing so, they're snickering and having a laugh about it, while talking about Mossad intercepting this shipment of pagers and rigging them to explode.

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

I don't know if anyone involved in either side of this conflict with Israel think that the killing of the young children of their opponents is funny, but I don't think it's funny, I don't think that 8 year old girl's family think it's funny, and I don't think anyone would appreciate it if someone thought that the intentional killing of their 8 year old daughter was funny.

A horrible incident!!!

Did you have a site to attach so that I can listen to it?

 

[anotherneil]

A horrible incident!!!

Did you have a site to attach so that I can listen to it?

It was the live broadcast from this morning & I suppose they'll have it posted here by tomorrow some time: O'Connor & Company

 

[Stevicus]

At least that was the attitude on WMAL's O'Connor & Company radio show this morning with co-host Julie Gunlock.

They were discussing this exploding pagers incident in Lebanon & Syria, and while doing so, they're snickering and having a laugh about it, while talking about Mossad intercepting this shipment of pagers and rigging them to explode.

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

I don't know if anyone involved in either side of this conflict with Israel think that the killing of the young children of their opponents is funny, but I don't think it's funny, I don't think that 8 year old girl's family think it's funny, and I don't think anyone would appreciate it if someone thought that the intentional killing of their 8 year old daughter was funny.

I had not heard of this station, but after doing a quick search, I found that they are part of the Fox News Radio Network.

There's a local Fox Radio affiliate where I live, and I occasionally listen in. Sometimes they tend to go a bit over the top. Compared to the bunch they have on there now, Rush Limbaugh seemed almost halfway sane by comparison.

 

[anotherneil]

I had not heard of this station, but after doing a quick search, I found that they are part of the Fox News Radio Network.

There's a local Fox Radio affiliate where I live, and I occasionally listen in. Sometimes they tend to go a bit over the top. Compared to the bunch they have on there now, Rush Limbaugh seemed almost halfway sane by comparison.

Rush Limbaugh was on WMAL back when he was still alive.

 

[anotherneil]

Almost forgot to mention - while they were talking about this story, and they started talking about it since the beginning of the show, they were getting a kick out of this song (they played a clip of it):

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And just think, Bob and Tom got fined a lot and a bunch over saying things not anywhere near or close to as bad as that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Almost forgot to mention - while they were talking about this story, and they started talking about it since the beginning of the show, they were getting a kick out of this song (they played a clip of it):

It's tragic people can have such a calloused disregard for life.
But of course if it was someone doing it to us their response would be the opposite. It wouldn't be funny even though someone was probably getting revenge for their own families who were bombed.

 

[Twilight Hue]

She was just a Muslim.
No real loss.

I know radical and militant Muslims would 100% agree with you. No real loss.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know radical and militant Muslims would 100% agree with you. No real loss.

I sense your agreement too.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

If I am reading this correctly:

1. They were talking about the pager attack ...
2. They were snickering ...
3. At first you thought they were not aware of the eight year old victim ...
4. Then they mentioned it ...
5. They you thought the intentional killing was funny ...

So, a few questions:

1. Was the flow of discussion such that it was clear that they thought the collateral dammage was funny?
2. How did you surmise that that the killing of an eight year old girl was intentional?

I'm trying to determine whether your entire post was an ugly distortion or just some of it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

At least that was the attitude on WMAL's O'Connor & Company radio show this morning with co-host Julie Gunlock.

They were discussing this exploding pagers incident in Lebanon & Syria, and while doing so, they're snickering and having a laugh about it, while talking about Mossad intercepting this shipment of pagers and rigging them to explode.

At first I wasn't sure that they were aware that one of the victims of this was an 8 year old girl, until Gunlock actually mentioned that an 8 year old girl had been killed by this incident; at that point, I realized that they thought the intentional killing of an 8-year old girl was funny.

I don't know if anyone involved in either side of this conflict with Israel think that the killing of the young children of their opponents is funny, but I don't think it's funny, I don't think that 8 year old girl's family think it's funny, and I don't think anyone would appreciate it if someone thought that the intentional killing of their 8 year old daughter was funny.

As much as I find this booby trap operation as a whole to be despicable, I don't think it's useful or productive to misrepresent it either.

It is just plain incorrect to state that killing and 8-year old was "intentional".

 

[QuestioningMind]

As much as I find this booby trap operation as a whole to be despicable, I don't think it's useful or productive to misrepresent it either.

It is just plain incorrect to state that killing and 8-year old was "intentional".

I'm not so sure... it seems pretty fuzzy to me. When you indiscriminately blow up phones with no way of knowing who will be near them when they explode, it could certainly be argued that you intended for potential innocents - even 8 year-olds - to be killed. At the very least, no attempts were made to try and avoid such loss of life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not so sure... it seems pretty fuzzy to me. When you indiscriminately blow up phones with no way of knowing who will be near them when they explode, it could certainly be argued that you intended for potential innocents - even 8 year-olds - to be killed. At the very least, no attempts were made to try and avoid such loss of life.

For it to be intentional, they need to be deliberately targeted.

If the goods booby trapped were, say, barbie dolls, then we could talk about it intentionally targeting children.
However the goods were beepers that were explicitly ordered for Hezbollah members. So clearly the intended targets were Hezbollah members.

I consider it despicable because indeed, it can't be known where these people were at the moment of detonation. And it's also impossible to know if the beepers were in fact on their person or instead say on the table where innocent bystanders were around.

I guess they considered such to be "acceptable collateral damage".
But it's just plain wrong to say that children were intentionally killed.

 

[QuestioningMind]

For it to be intentional, they need to be deliberately targeted.

If the goods booby trapped were, say, barbie dolls, then we could talk about it intentionally targeting children.
However the goods were beepers that were explicitly ordered for Hezbollah members. So clearly the intended targets were Hezbollah members.

I consider it despicable because indeed, it can't be known where these people were at the moment of detonation. And it's also impossible to know if the beepers were in fact on their person or instead say on the table where innocent bystanders were around.

I guess they considered such to be "acceptable collateral damage".
But it's just plain wrong to say that children were intentionally killed.

Again, I'm not so sure. I mean, isn't "acceptable collateral damage" basically the same thing as saying we're intentionally going to allow innocent bystanders to die? They know innocents will die, but they consider it acceptable, so they sent the pagers intending them to kill their targets, as well as an acceptable number of innocents. It's not as blatant as arming toys, but that doesn't absolve anyone of the intention. If they truly didn't intend for any innocents to die then they would have come up with a plan that had zero collateral damage or as close to zero as possible. But they decided to go with this despicable plan, because they figured they could just go "Jeez, we didn't intend for it to happen" and people will go, "Yeah, as bad as it was, it's not like it was intentional.

I'm not so certain we should let them off the hook so easily, just because they've tried make their intentions sound more palatable by using phrases like acceptable collateral damage.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, I'm not so sure. I mean, isn't "acceptable collateral damage" basically the same thing as saying we're intentionally going to allow innocent bystanders to die? They know innocents will die, but they consider it acceptable, so they sent the pagers intending them to kill their targets, as well as an acceptable number of innocents.

No, they don't "know" this. They know the risk exists.

It's not as blatant as arming toys, but that doesn't absolve anyone of the intention.

It does. The "intention" concerns the targeted. Children weren't targeted.

If they truly didn't intend for any innocents to die then they would have come up with a plan that had zero collateral damage or as close to zero as possible. But they decided to go with this despicable plan, because they figured they could just go "Jeez, we didn't intend for it to happen" and people will go, "Yeah, as bad as it was, it's not like it was intentional.

I'm not so certain we should let them off the hook so easily, just because they've tried make their intentions sound more palatable by using phrases like acceptable collateral damage.

Who said anything about letting them off the hook?
I also didn't say that *I* believe the potential collateral damage was acceptable - I most definitely don't.


I just don't feel the need to misrepresent it. To say "kids were intentionally killed", is just plain wrong.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No, they don't "know" this. They know the risk exists.



It does. The "intention" concerns the targeted. Children weren't targeted.


Who said anything about letting them off the hook?
I also didn't say that *I* believe the potential collateral damage was acceptable - I most definitely don't.


I just don't feel the need to misrepresent it. To say "kids were intentionally killed", is just plain wrong.

It doesn't matter if you consider it acceptable. The ones who used the tactic defined the tactic as acceptable collateral (a less shocking way of saying innocent) damage (a less shocking way of saying deaths). So they intentionally used a tactic that would kill their targets as well as an acceptable number of innocent deaths. They can't then claim that they didn't intend for any innocent people to die. IF they truly didn't intend for any innocent people to die then they would have used a tactic designed to avoid killing anyone who wasn't a target at all costs.

Let's say I really hate my uncle for very good reason. He's done some awful things and I'm sure he'll eventually do more, so I'm convinced that he needs to die. I have no desire to hurt or kill anyone else, but I've decided that if I get a chance to kill him, it's acceptable if do so, even if some innocent people happen to die as well. So I see him in the middle of a crowded mall and toss a grenade at him. I blow my uncle to bits, but unfortunately three innocent bystanders are killed as well. Now, would you describe my actions as despicable... but then say that since my intended target was my uncle that claiming that I intentionally killed innocent people is just plain wrong? I certainly wouldn't. I'd say that I intentionally killed innocent people because I thought it was an acceptable price to pay to ensure that I killed my uncle. And if one of my victims happened to be a 8 year old girl, I'd have no problem saying that I intended to kill children, since I was quite aware that children could well be among the innocent people I thought were acceptable to kill, just so I could ensure that my uncle was dead.

I don't think your argument holds up.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It doesn't matter if you consider it acceptable. The ones who used the tactic defined the tactic as acceptable collateral (a less shocking way of saying innocent) damage (a less shocking way of saying deaths). So they intentionally used a tactic that would kill their targets as well as an acceptable number of innocent deaths. They can't then claim that they didn't intend for any innocent people to die. IF they truly didn't intend for any innocent people to die then they would have used a tactic designed to avoid killing anyone who wasn't a target at all costs.

Let's say I really hate my uncle for very good reason. He's done some awful things and I'm sure he'll eventually do more, so I'm convinced that he needs to die. I have no desire to hurt or kill anyone else, but I've decided that if I get a chance to kill him, it's acceptable if do so, even if some innocent people happen to die as well. So I see him in the middle of a crowded mall and toss a grenade at him. I blow my uncle to bits, but unfortunately three innocent bystanders are killed as well. Now, would you describe my actions as despicable... but then say that since my intended target was my uncle that claiming that I intentionally killed innocent people is just plain wrong? I certainly wouldn't. I'd say that I intentionally killed innocent people because I thought it was an acceptable price to pay to ensure that I killed my uncle. And if one of my victims happened to be a 8 year old girl, I'd have no problem saying that I intended to kill children, since I was quite aware that children could well be among the innocent people I thought were acceptable to kill, just so I could ensure that my uncle was dead.

I don't think your argument holds up.

No matter how you wish to approach this, it ultimately comes down to what the word "intentional" means.
Potential collateral damage is not intentional

Also, your grenade example is not a proper analogy either.
In your example, you can see the dude standing a crowded place. At this point, the collateral damage is no longer "potential", it is a certainty.
Furthermore a grenade as a weapon is also intended to kill / damage within a rather wide radius. It is literally designed for shrapnel flying in all directions.

None of this was the case here.

 

[Stevicus]

Hezbollah pagers and walkie-talkies: How did they explode and who did it?

The attacks left at least 32 dead and thousands injured, but how the blasts occurred remains unclear.

www.bbc.com

What we know about Hungarian-based firm linked to Lebanon pagers

BBC Verify has looked into a firm called BAC Consulting, which has been linked to the pagers' production.

www.bbc.com

They're looking at a company based in Hungary, which was licensed by a Taiwanese manufacturer to make the pagers.

BAC Consulting is a Hungarian-based company which Gold Apollo says had permission to use its brand through a licensing agreement.

BBC Verify has accessed BAC’s company records, which reveal it was first incorporated in 2022 and has a single shareholder. It is registered to a building in Budapest's 14th district.

As well as BAC, a further 13 companies and one person are registered at the same building.

However, our search of a financial information database does not reveal that BAC has any connections to other companies or people.

The same database shows no trading information about BAC. For example, there are no records of any shipments between it and any other firms.

However, BAC's website, which is now inaccessible, previously said it was scaling up its business in Asia, and had a goal to "develop international technology co-operation among countries for the sale of telecommunication products".

According to records, BAC had a net turnover of 256,996,000 Hungarian Forint ($725,000; £549,000) in 2022, and 210,307,000 Hungarian Forint ($593,000; £449,000) in 2023.

A company brochure, published on LinkedIn, lists eight organisations BAC claims to have worked with - including the European Commission and the UK Department for International Development (DfID).

BBC Verify has approached all the listed organisations for comment. The UK Foreign Office - which has taken on DfID's responsibilities - told us it was in the process of investigating. But based on initial conversations, it said it did not have any involvement with BAC, despite the firm's claim.

BAC's website listed one person as its chief executive and founder - Cristiana Bársony-Arcidiacono - and does not appear to mention other employees.

BBC Verify has learned she graduated from the University of Catania with a physics degree in 2001. According to her LinkedIn profile, she also holds PhDs from two London universities.

Her professional profile also states she was a board member of the Earth Child Institute (ECI) - an international non-profit organisation. However, it told us that Ms Bársony-Arcidiacono "is not and never has been an official member of the Earth Child Institute board of directors".

The ECI said that she was introduced to them in 2017-18 and there was an exchange of emails "to explore if and how she could support ECI". However, "no one at ECI has not been in contact with this person in the years since 2018 and there is no current connection with her".

Elsewhere, Ms Bársony-Arcidiacono was listed as chief sustainability officer on the website of an organisation called Eden Global Climate Impact Group. However, this section of the website has now been removed.

We have made several attempts to contact Ms Bársony-Arcidiacono, but have been unable to reach her.

NBC has reported it had spoken to Ms Bársony-Arcidiacono, who confirmed her company worked with Gold Apollo. However, when asked about the pagers and the explosions, she said: "I don’t make the pagers. I am just the intermediate. I think you got it wrong."

The BBC has called BAC a number of times, but there is no answer.

A spokesperson for Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has said the exploding pagers were "never" in Hungary.

“Authorities have confirmed that the company in question is a trading intermediary, with no manufacturing or operational site in Hungary,” government spokesperson Zoltán Kovács said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).

So, it's not clear exactly what this company actually is, but some of the information on the website was phony. And even though they had a license to manufacture the pagers, they're saying that they were just an intermediary with no manufacturing or operational site in Hungary.

So, where were these pagers actually made? Nobody seems to know.

If nothing else, at least this goes to show that international transactions need to be more closely monitored.