16 ms·

> Now I'm struggling to see the differences between their activities and blowing up airplanes or launching rockets from schools and hospitals. Well, the obviou

> Now I'm struggling to see the differences between their activities and blowing up airplanes or launching rockets from schools and hospitals. Well, the obvious difference is that blowing up airplanes or launching rockets at residential areas intentionally targets civilians in order to spread a maximum amount of terror among the civilian population while blowing up pagers that were used for coordinating attacks against Israel very specifically targets operatives involved in such activities. Some of the initial footage shows such a device going off while innocent bystanders remain unharmed. You can't get any more targeted than that. Yes, such a pager might have ended up in the hands of a non-involved person, but given the facts known so far that's very unlikely, because there's a reason those people were carrying these devices on them: They were afraid of being tracked down by Mossad in the first place.

ardfard 2y ago
[flagged]
- 1over137 2y ago
  >This is an indiscriminate attack. It’s the opposite. They discriminated carefully. Perhaps you mean to say innocent bystanders also were collateral damage, which certainly seems true also.
  - stahtops 2y ago
    They may have discriminated carefully on which devices were modified, but any care or intelligence ends there. When they triggered the bombs, they can’t have known who or what was in the blast radius. Video shows one going off in a produce market. The fact that those variables are uncontrolled make it indiscriminate, by definition.
- BjoernKW 2y ago
  > This is false. Many innocents are killed including children That article - just like all other sources - mentions one 8-year-old girl, not "many innocents" and not several children either. Hence, this is deliberate misinformation. > You can't determine where the device is when the bomb is activated. You absolutely can. It's highly likely to be in the targeted person's pocket. Where else would it be? After all, people usually don't hand their phones to random strangers or leave them lying around - and those pagers aren't even mere personal devices used for private purposes. Why would any of those devices end up anywhere else but the pocket of the person using it? > This is an indiscriminate attack. Launching rockets at civilians is. Blowing up pagers explicitly used for terrorist activities isn't.
  - wholinator2 2y ago
    > You absolutely can. It's highly likely to be in the targeted person's pocket. This seems intentionally avoiding the point. Duh, it's a pager. The real question is can the person donating the explosive tell if the pocket is completely isolated from innocents or if it's standing in a crowded line sitting very near to a childs head. I do believe that Israel _tried_ to discriminate but its an explosive, you can only aim those to a point. Israel wasn't deliberately trying to kill children/harm innocents, Isreal did knowingly engage in a set of actions where it was possible outcome. I want to be clear i am not trying to choose a side. These are actions of war in the 21st century.
    - colordrops 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - __m 2y ago
        [flagged]
        colordrops 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - dredmorbius 2y ago
        Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>
  - ardfard 2y ago
    > After all, people usually don't hand their phones to random strangers or leave them lying around - and those pagers aren't even mere personal devices used for private purposes. Why would any of those devices end up anywhere else but the pocket of the person using it? I leave my phone all the time, my kids are actually playing games on it. Also, I can be on public transportation, I can be driving, near a flammable object, or boarding a plane. As demonstrated an 8-year-old girl died, it's enough proof that an innocent died.
Taniwha 2y ago
They were lucky someone wasn't carrying one on a plane
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jarsin 2y ago
  Do we know whether or not they embedded gps tracking into the bombs? I would think they would have that ability, not just to avoid a horrible accident like blowing up a plane, but also to gather valuable tracking intel on a terrorist organization.
  - satori99 2y ago
    My understanding is that pagers are typically radio Rx-only, and that it is not possible to track their location like a cellular device -- which is likely why Hezbollah chose to use them. Though it would be possible to add this ability when the hardware was intercepted, a transmitting device is also easy to detect.
    - jasonwatkinspdx 2y ago
      Two way pagers have been a thing since the 90s. You're limited to replying with a very short alphanumeric message. That said, pagers don't continuously ping the tower like cell phones do. They can stay receive only until the moment you chose to send a message.
      - BuildTheRobots 2y ago
        The AR924's in question are POCSAG pagers; broadcast from base stations and receive only at the pager end. Two way pagers are a thing but use an entirely different protocol for communications.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Most of the flight would be out of range and I’m not even sure that explosion would take out a plane. Plus it would probably be powered off because Hezbollah is serious about flight safety.
remram 2y ago
> Eight killed and 2,750 wounded Such a pager did end up hurting non-involved people, in great quantity.
- temporalparts 2y ago
  I know there is a documented case of a non-involved person getting injured, but do you have evidence that this attack was not 99% effective? The attack vector was the device specifically used only by involved people.
  - snypher 2y ago
    A 9 year old child was killed, proving this attack wasn't as targeted as you think. However Israel is happy to accept any amount of collateral damage as long as it doesn't happen to them.
    - rougka 2y ago
      Any child death is tragic, but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare. It is safe to believe that everyone that was given a pager for secret communication by a terrorist group, is associated with such group, probably in a military capacity. Furthermore, videos show that extremely close bystanders are left unhurt. I think this only goes out to show that criticism towards Israel waging warfare is not really about the way that warfare is fought, but really on the right of Israel to fight at all. As no one in history has achieved a more precise attack in urban setting towards a non-uniformed organization ever.
      - talldayo 2y ago
        > but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare. You are making that up and quoting yourself. There was not a single fire-control system onboard these pagers; there was no visual designation of the target, and no confirmation that it was being carried by it's owners. The target was broadly designated and not even discriminated on a case-by-case basis. A button was pressed, and consequences including the death of a child are now in play. Israel has the capability to field targeted strikes on their own using domestic Litening and SPICE munitions (not to say they don't end up targeting civilians anyways). The unforunate bottom line is that this was an indiscriminate and presumptive attack that generally relies on a complete disregard for collateral damage. Innocent bystanders died, ones that would not be targeted by any morally accountable soldier in the command-and-control loop. That means an error was made, in civilized armies.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
stahtops 2y ago
The act of modifying and/or deploying the devices was targeted. That’s it. Carrying out an explosives attack across a large geographic area that includes public spaces, with no specific intelligence on the location of the devices, or who is within the blast range, is the exact opposite of targeted.
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  What on earth would be more targeted than compromising pagers that only Hezbollah military is using? At some point the criticism really gets absurd. There probably was collateral damage, yes. This is what you have to account for if you start wars against another nation. Repeatedly. Opposite of targeted are the missiles that hit northern Israel.
  - anon291 2y ago
    For these people, there will never be an attack good enough, targeted enough, or proper enough It's because they're not motivated by fairness but a pre existing idea of who is good or bad
- zaptrem 2y ago
  In terms of collateral damage it seems much better than even the most precise missiles, though.
esjeon 2y ago
> You can't get any more targeted than that. We can nuke a dictator. It's going to blow up everything within miles, evaporating millions of people, but it can't get any more targeted than that. Deal with it. Seriously, tho, it's infuriating that a government literally triggered explosion among general public, right in front of innocent eyes. This is an act of terrorism, harming the lives of innocent people who've been largely unrelated to the conflict.
rakoo 2y ago
> blowing up airplanes or launching rockets at residential areas intentionally targets civilians in order to spread a maximum amount of terror among the civilian population Which is exactly what Israel has been doing for decades by installing an apaitheid regime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid colonizing palestinian land https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories kicking hundreds of thousands of people off of their homes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba putting guns on their head day in day out https://www.msf.org/palestinians-face-harassment-and-violence-settlers-west-bank https://www.msf.org/palestinians-face-harassment-and-violenc... running on them with tanks while their families must watch https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 destroy the graves in an attempt to dehumanize even more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_razing_of_cemeteries_and_necroviolence_against_Palestinians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_razing_of_cemeteries... and on and on and on since a time when none of us was even born. Let's not pretend Israel is the good guy here. There are no good guys, and while I don't accept the acts of Hezbollah, what is a colonized people being genocided to do when the world doesn't care about them being denied human rights ?
- stefantalpalaru 2y ago
  [dead]
- pvaldes 2y ago
  > running on them with tanks while their families must watch https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 Wow. Just, wow!. They run a tank over the mother until assassinate her in front of their four children? Really? I'm speechless. This is an absolutely hideous act
zer0x4d 2y ago
Many people fail to see this. You can't compare a terrorist attack that intentionally targets civilians with no apparent military target to a legitimate attack on a defined military target that unfortunately results in some collateral damage.
- abalone 2y ago
  Many people fail to see this because they have an intact moral core. Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians. Israel has utilized a rate of expected civilian to militant casualties in Gaza at the rate of 100:1 [1]. [1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians. By that logic only the absolute number of (expected) civilian deaths matters... which can't be right. If it were true, then exploding a city bus (1 soldier, 10 civilians) would be more moral than striking a military base (1,000 soldiers, 11 civilians.) It would also suggest a kind of blame-shifting if one side decides to install their missile launchers in the playgrounds of elementary schools or whatever.
    - abalone 2y ago
      You are simply incorrect. “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number. But to your point, Israel’s ratio in Gaza was as high as 100 civilians to 1 soldier in the shopping mall (or more accurately, refugee family shelters).
      - Terr_ 2y ago
        > “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number. No, you've cut off the crucial second half of the sentence, which says a military operation with known risks of civilian deaths "is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians." The phrase "those civilians" refers to a countable quantity of them. Perhaps you meant to write "morally equivalent to targeting that proportion of civilians"?
WillowBullock 2y ago
Israel also do bad things. Maybe it flies under the radar of being called terrorism by the west - but look at west banks settlements, jailing kids forever for throwing stones, turning Gaza into something that makes Mad Max look like a dream in the name of self-defence, appartheid conditions in Israel and the occupied territories. Offensives on Gaza before Oct 7 - 2023 was particularly bad, and the general embargo aroudn Gaza that made life pretty rotten before the current war - etc. Israel do enough operations that ticks the "look we killed soldiers guys!" box and they really like to get media attention on that. Otherwise it is "Hamas was hiding there". Hard to verify - they may be right sometimes, but I bet not all the time based on the the number of deaths and the amount of destruction in Gaza.
- km3r 2y ago
  > jailing kids forever for throwing stones This isn't happening. Kids are being jailed for throwing stones, yes. Just like you or I would be jailed if we threw a rock at a cop. But it is not "forever".
abalone 2y ago
> Some of the initial footage shows such a device going off while innocent bystanders remain unharmed. This is anecdotal and misleading. There are reports of civilians maimed including the murder of a child. This is entirely plausible due to the indiscriminate nature of these bombs with respect to immediate bystanders. If an enemy had set off thousands of small bombs in American supermarkets and homes, maiming thousands of whoever was nearby and killing children, we would undoubtedly call it a mass terrorist attack.
- nindalf 2y ago
  2000+ bombs hurting 2000 fighters and one child? I'd argue that almost no war is without collateral damage, but this one action might be uniquely low in the amount of collateral damage done. > This is anecdotal and misleading I saw 5 videos and in every case only the person carrying the pager was hurt. Even people less than a foot away weren't harmed. Look at the video on the front page of nytimes.com right now to see what it's like. Highly targeted at Hizbullah soldiers, no bystanders hurt. The exact opposite of "indiscriminate". You're working yourself up into some righteous anger about this, which is fine, that's your choice. But at least recognise that that's what you're doing. You need a certain narrative to be true so you're twisting facts to suit that.
  - abalone 2y ago
    > no bystanders hurt This is incorrect. There are reports of maimed civilians and a murdered child. There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda.
    - dlubarov 2y ago
      Sure, there has been at least one civilian death, and others might be reported later. While we don't have numbers yet, the evidence so far suggests a low ratio of civilian casualties, probably much lower than what's possible using convention warfare against an enemy embedded in a civilian population.

ardfard 2y ago

[flagged]

1over137 2y ago
>This is an indiscriminate attack. It’s the opposite. They discriminated carefully. Perhaps you mean to say innocent bystanders also were collateral damage, which certainly seems true also.
- stahtops 2y ago
  They may have discriminated carefully on which devices were modified, but any care or intelligence ends there. When they triggered the bombs, they can’t have known who or what was in the blast radius. Video shows one going off in a produce market. The fact that those variables are uncontrolled make it indiscriminate, by definition.
BjoernKW 2y ago
> This is false. Many innocents are killed including children That article - just like all other sources - mentions one 8-year-old girl, not "many innocents" and not several children either. Hence, this is deliberate misinformation. > You can't determine where the device is when the bomb is activated. You absolutely can. It's highly likely to be in the targeted person's pocket. Where else would it be? After all, people usually don't hand their phones to random strangers or leave them lying around - and those pagers aren't even mere personal devices used for private purposes. Why would any of those devices end up anywhere else but the pocket of the person using it? > This is an indiscriminate attack. Launching rockets at civilians is. Blowing up pagers explicitly used for terrorist activities isn't.
- wholinator2 2y ago
  > You absolutely can. It's highly likely to be in the targeted person's pocket. This seems intentionally avoiding the point. Duh, it's a pager. The real question is can the person donating the explosive tell if the pocket is completely isolated from innocents or if it's standing in a crowded line sitting very near to a childs head. I do believe that Israel _tried_ to discriminate but its an explosive, you can only aim those to a point. Israel wasn't deliberately trying to kill children/harm innocents, Isreal did knowingly engage in a set of actions where it was possible outcome. I want to be clear i am not trying to choose a side. These are actions of war in the 21st century.
  - colordrops 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - __m 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - colordrops 2y ago
        [flagged]
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>
- ardfard 2y ago
  > After all, people usually don't hand their phones to random strangers or leave them lying around - and those pagers aren't even mere personal devices used for private purposes. Why would any of those devices end up anywhere else but the pocket of the person using it? I leave my phone all the time, my kids are actually playing games on it. Also, I can be on public transportation, I can be driving, near a flammable object, or boarding a plane. As demonstrated an 8-year-old girl died, it's enough proof that an innocent died.

Taniwha 2y ago

They were lucky someone wasn't carrying one on a plane

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jarsin 2y ago
Do we know whether or not they embedded gps tracking into the bombs? I would think they would have that ability, not just to avoid a horrible accident like blowing up a plane, but also to gather valuable tracking intel on a terrorist organization.
- satori99 2y ago
  My understanding is that pagers are typically radio Rx-only, and that it is not possible to track their location like a cellular device -- which is likely why Hezbollah chose to use them. Though it would be possible to add this ability when the hardware was intercepted, a transmitting device is also easy to detect.
  - jasonwatkinspdx 2y ago
    Two way pagers have been a thing since the 90s. You're limited to replying with a very short alphanumeric message. That said, pagers don't continuously ping the tower like cell phones do. They can stay receive only until the moment you chose to send a message.
    - BuildTheRobots 2y ago
      The AR924's in question are POCSAG pagers; broadcast from base stations and receive only at the pager end. Two way pagers are a thing but use an entirely different protocol for communications.
mattmaroon 2y ago
Most of the flight would be out of range and I’m not even sure that explosion would take out a plane. Plus it would probably be powered off because Hezbollah is serious about flight safety.

remram 2y ago

> Eight killed and 2,750 wounded Such a pager did end up hurting non-involved people, in great quantity.

temporalparts 2y ago
I know there is a documented case of a non-involved person getting injured, but do you have evidence that this attack was not 99% effective? The attack vector was the device specifically used only by involved people.
- snypher 2y ago
  A 9 year old child was killed, proving this attack wasn't as targeted as you think. However Israel is happy to accept any amount of collateral damage as long as it doesn't happen to them.
  - rougka 2y ago
    Any child death is tragic, but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare. It is safe to believe that everyone that was given a pager for secret communication by a terrorist group, is associated with such group, probably in a military capacity. Furthermore, videos show that extremely close bystanders are left unhurt. I think this only goes out to show that criticism towards Israel waging warfare is not really about the way that warfare is fought, but really on the right of Israel to fight at all. As no one in history has achieved a more precise attack in urban setting towards a non-uniformed organization ever.
    - talldayo 2y ago
      > but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare. You are making that up and quoting yourself. There was not a single fire-control system onboard these pagers; there was no visual designation of the target, and no confirmation that it was being carried by it's owners. The target was broadly designated and not even discriminated on a case-by-case basis. A button was pressed, and consequences including the death of a child are now in play. Israel has the capability to field targeted strikes on their own using domestic Litening and SPICE munitions (not to say they don't end up targeting civilians anyways). The unforunate bottom line is that this was an indiscriminate and presumptive attack that generally relies on a complete disregard for collateral damage. Innocent bystanders died, ones that would not be targeted by any morally accountable soldier in the command-and-control loop. That means an error was made, in civilized armies.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

stahtops 2y ago

The act of modifying and/or deploying the devices was targeted. That’s it. Carrying out an explosives attack across a large geographic area that includes public spaces, with no specific intelligence on the location of the devices, or who is within the blast range, is the exact opposite of targeted.

raxxorraxor 2y ago
What on earth would be more targeted than compromising pagers that only Hezbollah military is using? At some point the criticism really gets absurd. There probably was collateral damage, yes. This is what you have to account for if you start wars against another nation. Repeatedly. Opposite of targeted are the missiles that hit northern Israel.
- anon291 2y ago
  For these people, there will never be an attack good enough, targeted enough, or proper enough It's because they're not motivated by fairness but a pre existing idea of who is good or bad
zaptrem 2y ago
In terms of collateral damage it seems much better than even the most precise missiles, though.

esjeon 2y ago

> You can't get any more targeted than that. We can nuke a dictator. It's going to blow up everything within miles, evaporating millions of people, but it can't get any more targeted than that. Deal with it. Seriously, tho, it's infuriating that a government literally triggered explosion among general public, right in front of innocent eyes. This is an act of terrorism, harming the lives of innocent people who've been largely unrelated to the conflict.

rakoo 2y ago

> blowing up airplanes or launching rockets at residential areas intentionally targets civilians in order to spread a maximum amount of terror among the civilian population Which is exactly what Israel has been doing for decades by installing an apaitheid regime https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_apartheid colonizing palestinian land https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-occupied_territories kicking hundreds of thousands of people off of their homes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba putting guns on their head day in day out https://www.msf.org/palestinians-face-harassment-and-violence-settlers-west-bank https://www.msf.org/palestinians-face-harassment-and-violenc... running on them with tanks while their families must watch https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 destroy the graves in an attempt to dehumanize even more https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_razing_of_cemeteries_and_necroviolence_against_Palestinians https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_razing_of_cemeteries... and on and on and on since a time when none of us was even born. Let's not pretend Israel is the good guy here. There are no good guys, and while I don't accept the acts of Hezbollah, what is a colonized people being genocided to do when the world doesn't care about them being denied human rights ?

stefantalpalaru 2y ago
[dead]
pvaldes 2y ago
> running on them with tanks while their families must watch https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/6385?s=35 Wow. Just, wow!. They run a tank over the mother until assassinate her in front of their four children? Really? I'm speechless. This is an absolutely hideous act

zer0x4d 2y ago

Many people fail to see this. You can't compare a terrorist attack that intentionally targets civilians with no apparent military target to a legitimate attack on a defined military target that unfortunately results in some collateral damage.

abalone 2y ago
Many people fail to see this because they have an intact moral core. Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians. Israel has utilized a rate of expected civilian to militant casualties in Gaza at the rate of 100:1 [1]. [1] https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/ https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
- Terr_ 2y ago
  > Conducting a military operation that has a fully predictable rate of civilian casualties is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians. By that logic only the absolute number of (expected) civilian deaths matters... which can't be right. If it were true, then exploding a city bus (1 soldier, 10 civilians) would be more moral than striking a military base (1,000 soldiers, 11 civilians.) It would also suggest a kind of blame-shifting if one side decides to install their missile launchers in the playgrounds of elementary schools or whatever.
  - abalone 2y ago
    You are simply incorrect. “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number. But to your point, Israel’s ratio in Gaza was as high as 100 civilians to 1 soldier in the shopping mall (or more accurately, refugee family shelters).
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > “Rate” is a ratio, not an absolute number. No, you've cut off the crucial second half of the sentence, which says a military operation with known risks of civilian deaths "is morally equivalent to targeting those civilians." The phrase "those civilians" refers to a countable quantity of them. Perhaps you meant to write "morally equivalent to targeting that proportion of civilians"?

WillowBullock 2y ago

Israel also do bad things. Maybe it flies under the radar of being called terrorism by the west - but look at west banks settlements, jailing kids forever for throwing stones, turning Gaza into something that makes Mad Max look like a dream in the name of self-defence, appartheid conditions in Israel and the occupied territories. Offensives on Gaza before Oct 7 - 2023 was particularly bad, and the general embargo aroudn Gaza that made life pretty rotten before the current war - etc. Israel do enough operations that ticks the "look we killed soldiers guys!" box and they really like to get media attention on that. Otherwise it is "Hamas was hiding there". Hard to verify - they may be right sometimes, but I bet not all the time based on the the number of deaths and the amount of destruction in Gaza.

km3r 2y ago
> jailing kids forever for throwing stones This isn't happening. Kids are being jailed for throwing stones, yes. Just like you or I would be jailed if we threw a rock at a cop. But it is not "forever".

abalone 2y ago

> Some of the initial footage shows such a device going off while innocent bystanders remain unharmed. This is anecdotal and misleading. There are reports of civilians maimed including the murder of a child. This is entirely plausible due to the indiscriminate nature of these bombs with respect to immediate bystanders. If an enemy had set off thousands of small bombs in American supermarkets and homes, maiming thousands of whoever was nearby and killing children, we would undoubtedly call it a mass terrorist attack.

nindalf 2y ago
2000+ bombs hurting 2000 fighters and one child? I'd argue that almost no war is without collateral damage, but this one action might be uniquely low in the amount of collateral damage done. > This is anecdotal and misleading I saw 5 videos and in every case only the person carrying the pager was hurt. Even people less than a foot away weren't harmed. Look at the video on the front page of nytimes.com right now to see what it's like. Highly targeted at Hizbullah soldiers, no bystanders hurt. The exact opposite of "indiscriminate". You're working yourself up into some righteous anger about this, which is fine, that's your choice. But at least recognise that that's what you're doing. You need a certain narrative to be true so you're twisting facts to suit that.
- abalone 2y ago
  > no bystanders hurt This is incorrect. There are reports of maimed civilians and a murdered child. There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda.
  - dlubarov 2y ago
    Sure, there has been at least one civilian death, and others might be reported later. While we don't have numbers yet, the evidence so far suggests a low ratio of civilian casualties, probably much lower than what's possible using convention warfare against an enemy embedded in a civilian population.