Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hypeatei 639 days ago
So you can guarantee every single pager went to a solider of war? By that logic, soldiers in the Ukraine war also use cellphones and drones so it's A-OKAY to implant bombs in those products too?
4 comments

These weren’t sold at a Best Buy.

They were purchased by a known terrorist organizations that any westerner would go to jail for having a financial relationship with .

The types of people they deal with to buy anything at all - including black market weapons and machinery - are dubious

The US does these exact same things to infiltrate Mexican cartels

[flagged]
Two things: 1) This is war. It's not pretty and it's never not messy.

2) This is precisely why every human, and every leader of humans, should avoid war at all costs. The image of a "clean" war is a myth. Even the Allies in WWII were not immune to this, see the bombing of Dresden[1].

Whatever you think of either side in this, it's clear that neither is doing enough to end this.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden

No, we are not "good with it".

Becouse we don't do "eye for eye" in the West.

Becouse christianity formed our societes like this. With help of Romans...

Becouse we learned about separating religion from power, law, medicine, science, etc. Some tries to get rid of religion completly but that another subject.

And it is absolutely sure US agency would not do such thing on "USA soil".

But down there is a open battle in WW3 - Israel delivered something to Ukraine and next day rockets started falling on them, fired by suicidal ponies.

Compared to carpet bombing and leveling whole cities, we have come a long way
There are acceptable levels of collateral damage.

You can bomb an ordnance storage facility even if there's a hospital right next to it (or, in fact, right not on top of it).

They've made sure the pagers were used by Hezbollah first and foremost, tough shit if few were given to kids to play.

And yes if Ukrainians were able to blow up all drones within say 50km of the front lines on the Russian side they'd be justified to do that, even if some were in civilians' hands.

You've been victim of what's called manufactured consent.

Why hasn't Israel allowed any investigations in Gaza, not showing evidence they're using to obliterate practically all of Palestine now, not allowing foreign journalists in either to document things?

This is just a bunch of non-sequiturs.
It logically fits, you're just avoiding and trying to control the goal posts/scope of what's talked about.

You'd prefer we mostly only talk about Oct. 7th and afterward, right?

No, we sure can go all the way back to 1948 and talk about how Israel gained territory in a series of defensive wars, Palestinians and their Arab allies getting their asses handed back to them every single time.

We'll sure find some occurrences of Israel chasing away Arab civilians early on, but that's beside the point. This attack, and the absolute majority of Israel attacks of the last decades, target enemy combatants, and civilians only ever suffer collaterally. Israel never mounted an attack on civilians, and went very far in reducing civilian casualties when attacking combatants - roof knocking and all that.

Cool, let's go further back than that - but I'll start it off with putting a thought exercise forward to you, with this scenario:

Due to your compassion for the displaced Palestinians, most of which who's homes have been obliterated - if they weren't "killed" themselves,

What % of your assets/land/property that you own will you be willing to give the Palestinian citizens to support them after this atrocity?

Remember, in this scenario you're not being forced to give this - it's out of the goodness of your heart. What percentage would you give?

How about 54% of everything you own?

And so in conclusion, I'm most curious if you will avoid answering because you'll see my point and your answer will out you as a hypocrite?

I'll have followup questions if you're willing to engage and not fearful to engage in discussion.

Even if up to 30% of casualties were civilian this would still be quite a surgical strike in my opinion. At 50% I would not say so anymore. Nobody knows yet anyways.
How could I possibly personally guarantee that?

If your standard for engaging in military action is that they must be able to prove to you personally that their target is really a militant, you are completely delusional.