3 ms·
It wasn't a non-military political goal. It had a military purpose of taking out the communications network and personnel of a group that was actively engaged i
by apical_dendrite 10mo ago
It wasn't a non-military political goal. It had a military purpose of taking out the communications network and personnel of a group that was actively engaged in combat.
- computerex 10mo ago[flagged]
- sysguest 10mo agothis stark constrast to hezbollah's direct attack on civilians: 1. directly targeted civilians 2. direct action (not remote) 3. intentionally brutal (beheadings, rapes) ...what are they, animals? pager attack is, however scary it looks, rather more "reserved and gentlemen-ly way" of doing things: 1. targeted hezbolla militants (would average civilian use walkietalkie?) 2. indirect action for anyone saying otherwise, how more "gentlemen-ly" should israel be? do nothing? "talk" with the leaders? waste more precious lives by directly sending troops without any prior action? I just don't get why people talk negatively about the walkietalkie boomboom campaign -- it's a masterpiece of "trying the most not to kill civilians but doing your job"
- cholantesh 10mo agoHezbollah has not been known to behead and rape civilians and has in fact condemned the use of these tactics by Islamists. This conflation really draws into question the quality of your analysis.