4 ms·

Am I misinformed, or was 3,000? They are the most senior 3,000? When you send out 3,000 explosive into the general population, how do you mitigate the collatera

Am I misinformed, or was 3,000? They are the most senior 3,000? When you send out 3,000 explosive into the general population, how do you mitigate the collateral damage? I truly don't know the answers here. I'm under the impression that they all detonated simultaneously, so I'm keen to infer that there was very little thought given to civilians unlucky enough to be in the vicinity. Man. Blasting off fingers and genitals is really something...

dijit 2y ago
Were they not hand-delivered to Hezbollah? All the information I have seen indicates that they were handed to Hezbollah and distributed by Hezbollah for the intent purpose of avoiding Israeli intelligence services.
- ibejoeb 2y ago
  I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.
  - dijit 2y ago
    And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?
    - lm28469 2y ago
      You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
      - dijit 2y ago
        Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
        dijit 2y ago
        Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. Why? They killed 12 people including a child. If it was bank robbery and the police shot through a child but killed 11 robbers there would be a lot of heads rolling at that police department.
        dijit 2y ago
        No there wouldn't. Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander is well within limits of even a civilian police force, military ones are considered much more broad. NATO sets the acceptable loss threshold at 4:1; for every 4 combatants killed, 1 civilian is considered acceptable. It's very fluid, but you'll be hard pressed to find something more conservative than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio Yes, this is callous, and cold, and awful, but emotion has no place here, we're talking about people on both sides who feel like they are fighting for their right to exist. This is quite literally war, and there will be casualties. Truth be told, while I'm not giddy and children dying, I'm glad we're talking about so few civilian casualties despite causing so much damage to Hezbollah operatives and operations.

dijit 2y ago

Were they not hand-delivered to Hezbollah? All the information I have seen indicates that they were handed to Hezbollah and distributed by Hezbollah for the intent purpose of avoiding Israeli intelligence services.

ibejoeb 2y ago
I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.
- dijit 2y ago
  And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?
  - lm28469 2y ago
    You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
    - dijit 2y ago
      Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
      - lawlessone 2y ago
        >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
        dijit 2y ago
        Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. Why? They killed 12 people including a child. If it was bank robbery and the police shot through a child but killed 11 robbers there would be a lot of heads rolling at that police department.
        dijit 2y ago
        No there wouldn't. Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander is well within limits of even a civilian police force, military ones are considered much more broad. NATO sets the acceptable loss threshold at 4:1; for every 4 combatants killed, 1 civilian is considered acceptable. It's very fluid, but you'll be hard pressed to find something more conservative than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio Yes, this is callous, and cold, and awful, but emotion has no place here, we're talking about people on both sides who feel like they are fighting for their right to exist. This is quite literally war, and there will be casualties. Truth be told, while I'm not giddy and children dying, I'm glad we're talking about so few civilian casualties despite causing so much damage to Hezbollah operatives and operations.