Thousands injured, several dead after pagers explode across Lebanon: Health officials

My point is if Isreal wants to go into Gaza and start killing Hamas and innocent people get killed in the crossfire, that is one conversation. A totally different conversation is going to Lebanon, blowing up devices while people are out in public and killing innocent Lebanese civillians.

 

I understand why Israel is going into Lebanon. I understand why Israel has gone into Gaza.

I don’t agree that it is as black and white as some Israeli supporters claim - but I understand they feel threatened.

Having said that - I don’t believe that we need to have any more involvement than necessary.

Innocent people are dying on both sides as a result - and we don’t need to be in no man’s land - stuck in the middle.

Having spent some time in the region, having family that is Middle Eastern - and loving that area of the world - my opinions have changed a lot over time. There is no easy solution and there is no benefit in being involved.

 

I don't think so. The targeting mechanism is so clumsy that they don't know who they were targeting, so they had no ability to verify they were legitimate targets.

 

Basically murdering people inside their own country is a diabolical.
Would we . .. as Americans have any understanding if Russia did this? China?

We moving toward ANYTHING GOES type of warfare

Rocket River

 

The Middle East is its own disaster, has been for centuries, it is a policy of containment so those tribal wars stay local.

DD

 

You keep ignoring the fact that the same Jihadists who have been attacking Israel ultimately want to be and already are attacking the USA as well.

Israel and the USA are on the same side - not even necessarily by choice, but because the same enemy wants to destroy them both. And that's not because the USA have been supporting Israel. The USA could completely stop supporting Israel, and the Jihadists would still want to destroy the USA anyway.

Your "neutral" stance results de facto in an anti-Israel stance, which ends with harm to the USA.

Not supporting Israel means emboldening and strengthening the enemies of the USA.

 

The biggest distinction to me is who is targeted. Certainly, in war, there will be innocent civilian casualties, which is terrible and sad. But in this attack, did Israel target Lebanese civilians? Or did they target Hezbollah militants?
When Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel, were they targeting Israeli militants? Or were they targeting Israeli civilians?

I endorse the side that does not target civilians.
...the side that doesn't take civilian hostages.
...the side that doesn't use rape as a military weapon.
...the side that doesn't use their own people as human shields by storing military staff, weapons, ammunition, and other military resources in schools, hospitals, and other civilian areas, intentionally putting their own civilians in harm's way.
...the side that doesn't refuse to coexist peacefully with the other side.

...and so should you.

 

LOL at all the fools crying tears for Hezbollah terrorists. Same folks just like AOC who will happily remain silent when Israeli civilians, including Israeli Muslims, get murdered.

 

Thanks for talking sense.

It should be so obvious.

Most of the people here have no moral compass.

Including the ones who pretend to be "neutral".

 

So you are okay with Israel exploding devices around Lebanese civilians and killing them? These people weren't being used as shields, like they are in Gaza. They were walking around going about their lives and were killed by exploding beepers and walkie talkies held by Hezbollah

 

If you're responding to who I think you're responding to the answer is probably yes. There is no civilian death he won't abide if it means that maybe a Hezbollah fighter dies, too.

Here's the thing: I don't think there's any way to fight against an enemy embedded within a civilian population without incurring civilian deaths. But, I don't brush them aside and I also wonder why he's so indifferent to the idea that people would be upset at thousands of civilians, going about their day outside of an active war zone, would be injured or killed by another state actor.

 

I am 100 % ok with Israel exploding devices bought by Hezbollah specifically for the purpose of communicating about terror against Israel.

 

My two cents. I'm sure Israel would prefer to attack their enemies without harming any civilians... but that isn't really realistic. So then Israel has to estimate how many civilian casualties there will be and decide if it's worth it.

From the videos I've seen, the Hezbollah people that got bombed were frequently among civilians who were not injured. I think the civilian casualties were kept pretty low compared the huge impact it had against Hezbollah.

 

Another factor to consider here is the level of control Israel had over who exactly had possession of these pagers or walkie talkies. Were they exclusively used by Hezbollah members, or could they have been leaked out into the general population for other (perhaps non-military) purposes?

And if you're just a normal Lebanese civilian who has a pager for work, imagine how you'd feel right now not being certain if that pager has an explosive that Israel planted in it or not.

This operation will have a significant psychological affect that extends well beyond just Hezbollah.

 

You're correct - it's possible that some of the devices ended up in civilian hands, and this is something else Israel would need to evaluate when determining if they should move forward with the strike.

I'm sure an innocent Lebanese civilian would be devastated if they were included in the bombing. But it sounds like you're insistent that no civilians get harmed and that's just not realistic in war. Civilians will get harmed, on both sides, of any war. The distinction is: who was targeted.

 

Bring up the question: How secure is the supply chain for communication and control devices? How many communication and control devices in the U.S. have been hacked to install surveillance or control access? Supply chain security vulnerabilities have been a challenge and didn’t receive much attention until recently. Now, every state will be asking these questions.

This is a remarkable story.

The Israeli military’s ability to deploy remote-controlled bombs that can be triggered from afar to target individuals, albeit imprecisely, is quite astonishing.

The timing of this action raises many questions. What strategy is behind it, considering it disrupted their own surveillance? Was it worth it? How many people were killed or injured? How many of the casualties were Hezbollah members? Understanding these numbers could provide insight into the Israeli military’s intentions. If the number of Hezbollah casualties is relatively low, the operation might aim at a broader objective, such as creating general fear and chaos, which could have political repercussions. Conversely, if the number is high, it suggests that the primary goal was to inflict significant damage on Hezbollah. The latest figures I saw were 32 killed and 3,000 injured, but it’s unclear how many of the casualties and injured were Hezbollah members and the extent of the injuries.

 

I'm not insistent of that and I understand the realities of war (part of the reason we should do more to avoid war when alternate paths are available).

Just pointing out that if I lived in Lebanon and I had a pager for work, or if I had loved ones who had a pager for work, I'd be very distressed about the whole thing and the uncertainty of whether it could just go off at any moment. Wouldn't you?

 

If I lived in Israel and had thousands of rockets lobbed at me indiscriminately every year, having to run into bunkers all the time -

plus suicide bombings

plus knife attacks

plus shootings -

I would be very distressed.

Wouldn't you?

 

Certainly. And I'd be even more nervous and distressed about it after this operation. Ordinary people who have to live with the uncertain risks of death as this conflict escalates, whether on the Israeli side or the Lebanese side, are the ones who I feel bad for.