The Israeli Pager attack

[JerryBaumchen 1,271]

31 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

It's not that I don't get your point and maybe fighting terrorism with terrorism is the solution. Also, it's well known that battles between armies involve weapons that maim, not kill, as they take additional soldiers off the field. But from what I have heard the pagers didn't just go off at the hip. Many wounds were in the face and eyes and included the loss of fingers or a hand. That implies a buzz and then time to see the number. If true, that is unnecessarily cruel, I think.

Hi Joe,

A question:  Do you think the Israelis were at the location of the pagers when they went off?

Any person could have a pager anywhere on them at anytime.  They could have it almost anywhere.

It would seem to me [ and, I have no info on this ], that they picked a time and that was it.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,569]

1 minute ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

A question:  Do you think the Israelis were at the location of the pagers when they went off?

Any person could have a pager anywhere on them at anytime.  They could have it almost anywhere.

It would seem to me [ and, I have no info on this ], that they picked a time and that was it.

Jerry Baumchen

No, I don't, and you missed the point. I listened to a report from a doctor at a Hospital in Beirut describing the injuries; at his hospital they received no fatalities. If the injuries he described are accurate then it seems to me that the pagers detonated at least a few seconds after buzzing. So it wasn't just sending a message there was an added element of cruelty as the hope was they'd have it in front of their faces and held in a hand. That I am not cool with.

[gowlerk 2,101]

29 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

No, I don't, and you missed the point. I listened to a report from a doctor at a Hospital in Beirut describing the injuries; at his hospital they received no fatalities. If the injuries he described are accurate then it seems to me that the pagers detonated at least a few seconds after buzzing. So it wasn't just sending a message there was an added element of cruelty as the hope was they'd have it in front of their faces and held in a hand. That I am not cool with.

Of course they called them so that someone would pick them up. They didn't want them sitting on a nearby table or shelf. They wanted the in hand to be effective. It is a dirty trick for sure, but certainly not out of bounds in the context of the battle being fought. 

[billvon 2,739]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

So it wasn't just sending a message there was an added element of cruelty as the hope was they'd have it in front of their faces and held in a hand. That I am not cool with.

It's war.  The chlorine gas used during World War I was far crueler, and was used for the same reason - to win a war.  We would, and have, done the same.

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,569]

52 minutes ago, billvon said:

It's war.  The chlorine gas used during World War I was far crueler, and was used for the same reason - to win a war.  We would, and have, done the same.

 

 

We have never done that in a similar act of terrorism. Oświęcim was another antagonists solution to a perceived problem. Good we defeated that, I'll guess you'll agree.

[gowlerk 2,101]

8 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We have never done that in a similar act of terrorism. Oświęcim was another antagonists solution to a perceived problem. Good we defeated that, I'll guess you'll agree.

The US, like most nations will and has resorted to extreme measures during war.  Losing troops is not easily accepted and when pressed very little is out of bounds. 

https://www.denix.osd.mil/rcwmprogram/history/

There are landmine conventions and international agreements about cluster munitions that the US refuses to sign onto for this very reason. No one has clean hands.

[Phil1111 1,081]

9 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We have never done that in a similar act of terrorism. Oświęcim was another antagonists solution to a perceived problem. Good we defeated that, I'll guess you'll agree.

 

There is no nice, humane way to kill or injure the enemy in war. Although the US is a leader in developing weapons designed to prevent collateral damage.

Edited September 19 by Phil1111

[normiss 723]

On 14 May 1948, Israel declared independence, and war began the next day.

750,000 Palestinians who had lived on that land fled or were expelled from their homes.

Neither they nor their descendants have been allowed by Israel to return.

The Palestinians' displacement has led to years of upheaval.

 

If only every invaded nation would just roll over and surrender already.

[JoeWeber 2,569]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

On 14 May 1948, Israel declared independence, and war began the next day.

750,000 Palestinians who had lived on that land fled or were expelled from their homes.

Neither they nor their descendants have been allowed by Israel to return.

The Palestinians' displacement has led to years of upheaval.

 

If only every invaded nation would just roll over and surrender already.

They need to just get over it. The reality is that it's always been Jewish land: it is written.

[Phil1111 1,081]

7 hours ago, normiss said:

On 14 May 1948, Israel declared independence, and war began the next day.

750,000 Palestinians who had lived on that land fled or were expelled from their homes.

Neither they nor their descendants have been allowed by Israel to return.

The Palestinians' displacement has led to years of upheaval.

 

If only every invaded nation would just roll over and surrender already.

Well the blame really belongs to the British they came up with the idea of a Jewish state. Then sold the whole idea to the UN. Arab states all rejected it and they wanted to appeal to to the International Court of Justice.But they needed UN approval to do so and that was rejected by the UN.  Britain was the administrators of Palestine. So the UK(now) and the UN came up with a suggested map:

Which was again rejected by the Arab states. I don't think there was ever a finalized map but i could be wrong. When Israel declared independence Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria all attacked Israel.

Israel kicked their collective asses and the rest is history. So the blame really belongs to the UK and the UN. for the whole mess.If it can be called blame as such.

Edited September 19 by Phil1111

[SkyDekker 1,294]

On 9/18/2024 at 3:32 AM, kallend said:

Apparently the pagers were a bulk order by Hezbollah from Taiwan for its members, who had been told not to use cell phones for security reasons.  Really there's no reason to use a pager these days unless you are up to something where you don't want to be traced.

Hezbollah, a declared enemy of Israel that regularly fires rockets into civilian areas, is a legitimate target.  Not Israels's fault if terrorists give terrorist purchased pagers to their kids.

Abd when Trump is President you will support his decision to do this to Venezuela cause MS13 ordered pagers....right?

[JoeWeber 2,569]

IDF fighters are bombing Lebanon now. It will be interesting to see what the next move is.

[Phil1111 1,081]

27 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Abd when Trump is President you will support his decision to do this to Venezuela cause MS13 ordered pagers....right?

Nah! trump would be more direct. "Donald Trump repeatedly raised the possibility of invading Venezuela in talks with his top aides at the White House, ... “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary.”...Quoting an unnamed senior administration official, the AP report said the suggestion stunned those present at the meeting, which included the then national security adviser, HR McMaster, and secretary of state, Rex Tillerson. ...

“We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbour,” Trump said.

“We’re all over the world and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away, Venezuela is not very far away and the people are suffering and dying. We have many options for Venezuela including a possible military option if necessary.”

A new trump administration won't have any no men in the circle of advisors.

[billvon 2,739]

13 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

We have never done that in a similar act of terrorism.

We have done far, far worse.

In 1945, US bombers targeted the city of Dresden, a civilian city in Germany.  Although the military claimed it was to target nearby factories that supported the war effort, the factories were not targeted - the most densely populated parts of the cities were.  In addition, the cities were housing thousands of refugees from nearby bombings. The bombings and resulting fires killed 25,000 civilians.

In 1968 the US military entered the village of My Lai in Vietnam.  There were no enemies in the village.  They killed the 300 civilians there using firearms, bayonets and rope.  At least one girl was raped before being killed.

In 2005, a group of US marines shot and killed 24 unarmed men, women and children in Haditha.  They knew they were civilians, that it was purely revenge against Arabs, and were told "shoot first, ask questions later." 

Also keep in mind that there was a very small but measurable chance that detonating nuclear weapons in the atmosphere would start a chain reaction in the atmopshere's nitrogen and destroy every living thing on Earth.  But that was considered acceptable, and we did it anyway.  Because in war, everything is acceptable, as long as it helps win the war.  True whether it's us, or the Israelis, or the Arabs.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,271]

57 minutes ago, billvon said:

We have done far, far worse.

In 1945, US bombers targeted the city of Dresden, a civilian city in Germany.  Although the military claimed it was to target nearby factories that supported the war effort, the factories were not targeted - the most densely populated parts of the cities were.  In addition, the cities were housing thousands of refugees from nearby bombings. The bombings and resulting fires killed 25,000 civilians.

In 1968 the US military entered the village of My Lai in Vietnam.  There were no enemies in the village.  They killed the 300 civilians there using firearms, bayonets and rope.  At least one girl was raped before being killed.

In 2005, a group of US marines shot and killed 24 unarmed men, women and children in Haditha.  They knew they were civilians, that it was purely revenge against Arabs, and were told "shoot first, ask questions later." 

Also keep in mind that there was a very small but measurable chance that detonating nuclear weapons in the atmosphere would start a chain reaction in the atmopshere's nitrogen and destroy every living thing on Earth.  But that was considered acceptable, and we did it anyway.  Because in war, everything is acceptable, as long as it helps win the war.  True whether it's us, or the Israelis, or the Arabs.

 

Hi Bill,

In 1939, not long after the invasion of Poland; some of Hitler's generals came to him and said that his bombing of civilian targets was against the rules of war.  Hitler said that the winners write the rules of war.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, we should not forget the fire-bombing of Tokyo in early 1945.

 

Edited September 19 by JerryBaumchen

[winsor 224]

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

In 1939, not long after the invasion of Poland; some of Hitler's generals came to him and said that his bombing of civilian targets was against the rules of war.  Hitler said that the winners write the rules of war.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  And, we should not forget the fire-bombing of Tokyo in early 1945.

 

Read "Slaughterhouse Five" some time.  Maybe "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" as well.

[nigel99 296]

Going back to the ethics of the attack. This BBC report is interesting. I’m in the fence, on one hand the psychological harm to innocent people is awful and far more widespread than the inner circle and few innocents physically injured. But providing refuge and support for terrorists helps with their cause, this may drive a wedge where people distance themselves from the terrorist groups. 

From the BBC 

Many people here, and across the country, are inevitably wondering what will come next. Some even say they do not know if it is safe to walk next to other people, and are changing their plans.

"Everyone is just panicking… We don’t know if we can stay next to our laptops, our phones. Everything seems like a danger at this point, and no one knows what to do,” one woman, Ghida, said.

The confusion was made worse by rumours that spread on social media. One of them suggested that even solar panels were blowing up. "A state of panic overwhelmed people,” another woman said. “And frankly, this situation is very frightening”.

[JoeWeber 2,569]

6 hours ago, nigel99 said:

Going back to the ethics of the attack.

I was thinking there might be some treaty guidance, CCW Amended Protocol II seems to be the latest, but pretty much as long as your bomb isn't intended for some kids Christmas Stocking it's defensible and even then there are probably workarounds. Apparently if legal equals ethical then intentional maiming is very ethical as long as not too many innocent bystanders are affected. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,271]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I was thinking there might be some treaty guidance, CCW Amended Protocol II seems to be the latest, but pretty much as long as your bomb isn't intended for some kids Christmas Stocking it's defensible and even then there are probably workarounds. Apparently if legal equals ethical then intentional maiming is very ethical as long as not too many innocent bystanders are affected. 

Hi Joe,

It is called war.

War is not pretty.

That is why I hate it.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,569]

9 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Joe,

It is called war.

War is not pretty.

That is why I hate it.

Jerry Baumchen

Are you saying that you wouldn't draw the line anywhere? If not then where would you draw the line?

[billvon 2,739]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

 Apparently if legal equals ethical  . . .

Where the HECK do you get that?  I mean, have you ever met a personal injury lawyer?

[JoeWeber 2,569]

15 minutes ago, billvon said:

Where the HECK do you get that?  I mean, have you ever met a personal injury lawyer?

Well, if it's any defense, I never claimed I was making a perfectly rational argument. 

[gowlerk 2,101]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I was thinking there might be some treaty guidance, CCW Amended Protocol II seems to be the latest, but pretty much as long as your bomb isn't intended for some kids Christmas Stocking it's defensible and even then there are probably workarounds. Apparently if legal equals ethical then intentional maiming is very ethical as long as not too many innocent bystanders are affected. 

What about fighting a war for territory is ever “ethical”?

[JoeWeber 2,569]

17 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

What about fighting a war for territory is ever “ethical”?

No one has yet made the claim, best I can tell. Nigel was simply pondering about the ethics of the attack, a legitimate question I think. In my case if I firmly believed that making remote controlled bomblets out of 5000 pagers and handing them to bad guys who were blended into a civilian population for later detonation would be an effective first step to ending Hezbollah once and for all I suppose I'd think it was ethical maiming and that would include any bystanders. But I don't believe that's going to happen any time soon and I do believe it more likely that more terrorists will be the result. Honestly, I really don't know why it seems so smarmy to me to take out enemies by blinding them and blowing off their fingers when arguably that's better treatment than killing them outright, it just does.

Edited September 21 by JoeWeber

[jakee 1,347]

10 hours ago, nigel99 said:

But providing refuge and support for terrorists helps with their cause, this may drive a wedge where people distance themselves from the terrorist groups. 

I would be quite surprised if that strategy has ever worked.