Paging Hezbollah ...

[Revoltingest]

Tlaib cartoon created by Detroit News columnist for other publication sparks outrage

A cartoon that recently was published by the National Review is sparking outrage and backlash from community members and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib.

www.wxyz.com

Rashida Tlaib is the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress. This kind of cartoon adds more fuel to an already incendiary political campaign season.

Back in the day, the Detroit News was known
as "The Nixon News". It's long had a conservative
bent, so it doesn't surprise me that they'd attack
Muslims & Palestinians.

 

[Revoltingest]

Israel escalates.
Enemies escalate.
What a mindless & deadly pursuit.

IDF retaliates after Hezbollah's deepest attack yet: Over 150 rockets, six wounded

Across four separate barrages throughout the early hours of Sunday morning, the IDF detected over 150 rockets and drones.

www.jpost.com

Eventually, war will be within Israel's borders.
No mere terrorist raid.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So highly targeted attacks against terrorists is terrorism?

No.

Detonating literally thousands of explosives in civilian areas is.
When they went off, these devices were in supermarkets, companies, schools, people's homes, markets, hospitals, sport clubs, hotels, etc.

It's basically as if they turned every one of those pager holders into suicide terrorists with bombvests, albeit with less powerful explosives.

How do you propose fighting terrorists?

With more caution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I implied nothing of the kind. Rather, I was noting the ignorance underpinning your ignorant blather concerning so-called "what-about-ism" and the gross hypocrisy at the heart of your anti-Israel screeds wrapped in your apparent indifference concerning Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi terrorism.

And you concluded I am supposedly indifferent concerning Hamaz, Hezbollah, etc... how, exactly?

Or perhaps you have voiced an impassioned condemnation of Hezbollah that I've somehow missed. I await the link.

So unless I have stated somewhere that I condemn the terrorism coming from that side, that must mean I somehow support it? Even when I never said any such either?

Great logic you got there.

Let's not pretend that civilian population centers were the target or that the distinction is irrelevant.

They were not the target, sure.
But clearly they didn't care that they were in the cross fire either.

To make a rather absurd comparison just to make that point clear....
It's like dropping a nuke on Moscow to take out Putin and then say "ow, but civilians weren't the target, we were after Putin! And we got him, didn't we? So..., job well done!"


Sorry, no. Mission accomplished perhaps, but the means were unethical and unworthy of people who are supposed to be the "good guys".
I can't consider them "the good guys" if they engage in such tactics.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Or perhaps you have voiced an impassioned condemnation of Hezbollah that I've somehow missed. I await the link.

So unless I have stated somewhere that I condemn the terrorism coming from that side, that must mean I somehow support it? Even when I never said any such either?

Selective outrage is hypocrisy and silence is consent.

 

[Revoltingest]

Selective outrage is hypocrisy and silence is consent.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Selective outrage is hypocrisy and silence is consent.

Your assumptions are noted.

If you wish to know what I think of Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.... all you have to do is ask.

But you don't do that, do you?
All you see is "someone criticizes Israel!!! They must be an islamic terrorist supporter!"

I get so tired of that mentality.


Ow, and by the way: https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/paging-hezbollah.280835/reply?quote=8723763

Quote from that post:

The way I see it, both sides of this conflict are engaging in evil behavior and tactics.

You might have missed that bit while you were hysterically being judgemental because someone dared to say a bad word about Israel.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The way I see it, both sides of this conflict are engaging in evil behavior and tactics.

You might have missed that bit ...

I did. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

They were not the target, sure.
But clearly they didn't care that they were in the cross fire either.

First of all, while there was clearly collateral damage, there was no "cross fire."

But let me ask the following: Do you acknowledge that

1. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization
2. that, while embedded in the population of Lebanon,
3. persistently launches explosives toward Israel, and
4. that Israel has the right to defend itself from these attacks?

If so, how would you suggest that they do so while minimizing collateral damage?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But let me ask the following: Do you acknowledge that

1. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization
2. that, while embedded in the population of Lebanon,
3. persistently launches explosives toward Israel, and
4. that Israel has the right to defend itself from these attacks?

Sure.

Do Palestinians have the right to defend themselves also?

If so, how would you suggest that they do so while minimizing collateral damage?

I don't know. I'm not a military guy.


Here's another question...
Suppose all those hezbollah guys were living in cities in Israel. Do you think Israel would have detonated the pagers then, knowing these guys were in Israeli civilian areas instead of in Lebanon?

 

[libre]

At risk of reviving a dead thread, this is an interesting commentary on this sort of an attack here that had passed me by earlier in the year.

Turning Everyday Gadgets into Bombs is a Bad Idea « bunnie's blog

Not all things that could exist should exist, and some ideas are better left unimplemented. Technology alone has no ethics: the difference between a patch and an exploit is the method in which a technology is disclosed. Exploding batteries have probably been conceived of and tested by spy agencies around the world, but never deployed en masse because while it may achieve a tactical win, it is too easy for weaker adversaries to copy the idea and justify its re-deployment in an asymmetric and devastating retaliation.


However, now that I’ve seen it executed, I am left with the terrifying realization that not only is it feasible, it’s relatively easy for any modestly-funded entity to implement. Not just our allies can do this – a wide cast of adversaries have this capability in their reach, from nation-states to cartels and gangs, to shady copycat battery factories just looking for a big payday (if chemical suppliers can moonlight in illicit drugs, what stops battery factories from dealing in bespoke munitions?). Bottom line is: we should approach the public policy debate around this assuming that someday, we could be victims of exploding batteries, too. Turning everyday objects into fragmentation grenades should be a crime, as it blurs the line between civilian and military technologies.


I fear that if we do not universally and swiftly condemn the practice of turning everyday gadgets into bombs, we risk legitimizing a military technology that can literally bring the front line of every conflict into your pocket, purse or home.