5 ms·
Yes. It is the definition of discriminate. The only more discriminate attack would be individual in-person assassination. Everyone seems to want to find a reas
by borski 2y ago
Yes. It is the definition of discriminate. The only more discriminate attack would be individual in-person assassination.
Everyone seems to want to find a reason to claim Israel is targeting civilians here, but they aren’t.
This is surgical, which is what everyone wanted Israel to do more of, when it came to how they wage war.
- nemomarx 2y agoIt's more discriminate than bombs, but like poisoning food and hoping it gets to the right target I think anything where you don't actually see the person before choosing to detonate isn't that surgical either. They couldn't actually check if the pagers were on the targets at the time or etc.
- borski 2y agoBut they didn’t arbitrarily poison food and hope it got to their target, poisoning all sorts of civilians along the way. That is a strawman. These devices were not used by non-militants. These devices were used for communications, by militants. No civilian was “playing with” or using these devices, as they were issued by Hezbollah to their operatives. It would be no different from targeting specific guns used by Hezbollah and booby-trapping them to shoot backwards. That is a targeted attack.
- talldayo 2y ago> No civilian was “playing with” or using these devices That's a statement you have to prove if you want it to qualify.