Hamas attacking Israel

[Bob Long]

Just now, DeNiro said:

That it’s pretty reckless to detonate explosives in public spaces?

 

You can’t fight terrorism like this without becoming exactly what you claim to stand against.

 

Is there a correct way to fight terrorists, or just more or less effective ways? 

 

[Coconuts]

20 hours ago, UnkNuk said:

 

Good grief.  Can that be done to cell phones?

 

I don't check this thread very often but the news had me wondering about this as well. 

 

Some may be quick to argue that "hey, if you're a terrorist you have nothing to worry about" but that's a load of crap imo. Governments around the world haven't been above weaponizing tech to use on their own citizenry in the past and we'll undoubtedly see more examples of it in the future. What's viewed as going too far by one party may be viewed as an acceptable level of collateral damage by another, thousands were supposedly injured by these attacks and I doubt they were all terrorists. 

 

Can't help but wondering about the implications of these attacks, this is international news and now others know it can be done if they didn't know already. 

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

Is there a correct way to fight terrorists, or just more or less effective ways? 

 

A way that limits civilian casualties yes.

 

You can’t say you’re against terrorism if you support the murder of innocent civilians. You’re just rooting for a different set of terrorists.

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by DeNiro

[RomanPer]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

That it’s pretty reckless to detonate explosives in public spaces?

 

You can’t fight terrorism like this without becoming exactly what you claim to stand against.

 

The fact that 99.9% of the victims are injured and not killed says the amount of explosive was minimal not to cause collateral damage to bystanders, only to those holding the devices. You can clearly see it in the videos, where the guy in a supermarket has 3 people right next to him and he's the only one affected. So, "detonate explosives in public spaces" sounds a lot worse than the reality.

[Elias Pettersson]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

That it’s pretty reckless to detonate explosives in public spaces?

 

You can’t fight terrorism like this without becoming exactly what you claim to stand against.

 

It's probably the most genius plan ever to kill terrorists.  Much better than sending rockets into the city.  Also, isn't that what Hezbollah is doing right now?  Where is AOC's tweet denouncing the rockets being sent by Hezbollah into public spaces?

[RomanPer]

1 minute ago, Coconuts said:

 

I don't check this thread very often but the news had me wondering about this as well. 

 

Some may be quick to argue that "hey, if you're a terrorist you have nothing to worry about" but that's a load of crap imo. Governments around the world haven't been above weaponizing tech to use on their own citizenry in the past and we'll undoubtedly see more examples of it in the future. What's viewed as going too far by one party may be viewed as an acceptable level of collateral damage by another, thousands were supposedly injured by these attacks and I doubt they were all terrorists. 

 

Can't help but wondering about the implications of these attacks, this is international news and now others know it can be done if they didn't know already. 

 

Electronic devices have been weaponized already many years ago. Why suddenly is it a concern now if it wasn't before? Cars can also be loaded with explosives, yet it's not a concern for 99.999999999% of the population.

[Elias Pettersson]

This is a perfect explanation...

 

So when Israel uses precision strikes, it's terrorism. When we go on the ground with an army, it's terrorism. And when we detonate small devices that 100% will be on enemy combatants it is, wouldn't you guess it, terrorism. But Hezbollah can rain down indiscriminate rockets and Hamas can light houses with children inside them on fire and that's resistance. The problem isn't how we are defending ourselves, it's that we are the ones doing it.

[Bob Long]

Just now, DeNiro said:

A way that limits civilian casualties yes.

 

isn't that what this did? I don't know that its possible to fight something like Hezbollah and do it with zero civilian casualties. Its also Hezbollah that chose to insert themselves into this. The responsbility lies with Hezbollah imo.

 

Just now, DeNiro said:

You can my say your against terrorism if you support the murder of innocent civilians. You’re just rooting for a different set of terrorists.

 

Dunno, I wish things were that black and white on the ground, i don't think it works that way in reality tho. 

[RomanPer]

2 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

A way that limits civilian casualties yes.

 

You can my say your against terrorism if you support the murder of innocent civilians. You’re just rooting for a different set of terrorists.

 

Where are civilian casualties in this case? There's a clear video showing "limiting civilian casualties".

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:

 

The fact that 99.9% of the victims are injured and not killed says the amount of explosive was minimal not to cause collateral damage to bystanders, only to those holding the devices. You can clearly see it in the videos, where the guy in a supermarket has 3 people right next to him and he's the only one affected. So, "detonate explosives in public spaces" sounds a lot worse than the reality.

The reality is innocent civilians were killed though.

 

If this was the other side doing it you’d call it a terrorist attack.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

isn't that what this did? I don't know that its possible to fight something like Hezbollah and do it with zero civilian casualties. Its also Hezbollah that chose to insert themselves into this. The responsbility lies with Hezbollah imo.

 

 

Dunno, I wish things were that black and white on the ground, i don't think it works that way in reality tho. 

It is pretty black and white in this case.

 

Detonating explosives in a public space is terrorism. Just cause it’s the side you think is morally right doesnt change that.

[RomanPer]

Just now, DeNiro said:

The reality is innocent civilians were killed though.

 

If this was the other side doing it you’d call it a terrorist attack.

 

This is not a reality, this is just you saying it. Less than 50 killed with thousands of injured speaks volume. The intent wasn't even to kill the terrorists themselves, just to take them out of commission. I have a feeling a military operation in South Lebanon is coming and this is just a way of reducing the enemy armed forces.

[Coconuts]

5 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Electronic devices have been weaponized already many years ago. Why suddenly is it a concern now if it wasn't before? Cars can also be loaded with explosives, yet it's not a concern for 99.999999999% of the population.

 

In all fairness, you probably have more knowledge regarding the weaponization of electronic devices than I do. 

 

But what stands out to me is that it could be done to phones, something that billions of folks around the world likely carry in their pockets on a daily basis. I doubt the IDF are the only ones who could utilize this approach. 

 

I'm not questioning the implications in this particular happening as much I am questioning the implications of this being done going forward. I wouldn't put it past the US to use it on their own citizenry for example. 

Edited 21 hours ago by Coconuts

[DeNiro]

2 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Where are civilian casualties in this case? There's a clear video showing "limiting civilian casualties".

Some were killed some were injured.

 

You realize injuries like this can be life altering right? Loss of limbs or sight or hearing?  
 

Just cause they weren’t killed doesn’t mean  they were severely impacted. 

[RomanPer]

Just now, DeNiro said:

Some were killed some were injured.

 

You realize injuries like this can be life altering right? Loss of limbs or sight or hearing?  
 

Just cause they weren’t killed doesn’t mean  they were severely impacted. 

 

Yes, for the terrorists. Zero sympathy.

[DeNiro]

1 minute ago, RomanPer said:

 

This is not a reality, this is just you saying it. Less than 50 killed with thousands of injured speaks volume. The intent wasn't even to kill the terrorists themselves, just to take them out of commission. I have a feeling a military operation in South Lebanon is coming and this is just a way of reducing the enemy armed forces.

Easy for you to draw that line of what’s acceptable loss of innocent lives.

 

I would imagine the people there who had no choice in this feel a little different…

[DeNiro]

4 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Yes, for the terrorists. Zero sympathy.

They werent all terrorists though.

 

Does it make it easier for you to label them all as terrorists?

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by DeNiro

[Bob Long]

7 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

They werent all terrorists though.

 

Does it make it easier for you to label them all of them as terrorists?

 

 

you do understand the context here? Lebanon backs terrorism in Israel and is likely preparing an invasion. 

 

It wasn't like Israel did this for the lol's. There's a legitimate case for self protection here. 

 

Its easy for us to sit here in N Am in a moral vacuum. If this were Russia sending terrorists to BC in advance of an attack, I'm pretty sure we'd all be just fine with a preemptive strike like this. 

 

 

 

Edited 21 hours ago by Bob Long

[RomanPer]

2 minutes ago, Coconuts said:

 

In all fairness, you probably have more knowledge regarding the weaponization of electronic devices than I do. 

 

But what stands out to me is that it could be done to phones, something that billions of folks around the world likely carry in their pockets on a daily basis. I doubt the IDF are the only ones who could utilize this approach. 

 

I'm not questioning the implications in this particular happening as I am questioning the implications of this being done going forward. I wouldn't put it past the US to use it on their own citizenry for example. 

 

In 1972 Israel killed one of the organizers of Munich massacre by putting a bomb into his phone. It wasn't even a cell phone at the time. 1996 Yahya Ayyash, known as "The Engineer", responsible for several bombings of Israeli citizens, had his head blown by a bomb concealed in a cell phone. From technology perspective, all this has been possible for years. Government using any type of technology to harm its citizens is completely unrelated to technology availability. If government wants to harm its citizens - they will find a way, cell phones or not. They have other means to do it, no need to go to this level of technology. Also, usually western governments that want to hurt individual citizens of their own countries try to keep it quiet, without drawing attention to these events. Government can put a bomb in your car, but do they?

[DeNiro]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

you do understand the context here? Lebanon backs terrorism in Israel and is likely preparing an invasion. 

 

It wasn't like Israel did this for the lol's. There's a legitimate case for self protection here. 

 

Its easy for us to sit here in N Am in a moral vacuum. If this were Russia sending terrorists to BC in advance of an attack, I'm pretty sure we'd all be just fine with a preemptive strike like this. 

 

 

 

I fully understand the context.

 

I don’t think we’d be fine with our own civilians being killed in order to take out terrorists actually.

 

It seems easy for us to sit here and dictate how many innocent people is justifiable though.

[RomanPer]

12 minutes ago, DeNiro said:

They werent all terrorists though.

 

Does it make it easier for you to label them all as terrorists?

 

 

 

 

Do you have specific numbers of who was and who wasn't? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Every single device that exploded was owned by Hezbollah (terrorist organization) associate. If you are an associate of a terrorist organization - you are a terrorist by definition. There were no reports of collateral damage, this is just you saying it.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, DeNiro said:

I fully understand the context.

 

I don’t think we’d be fine with our own civilians being killed in order to take out terrorists actually.

 

It seems easy for us to sit here and dictate how many innocent people is justifiable though.

 

in our case it would be Russian civilians in the example, and yes i would be OK with that if Russia was doing to us what Lebanon does to Israel. Right now Russia is content just to mess with our politics, but I can see a day where why not back domestic terror in Canada. 

 

I'm not going to sit in judgement of Israel on this one, when I'm quite certain most people in Canada would choose some kind of preventative action if we were faced with the same stuff. 

 

[DeNiro]

7 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

in our case it would be Russian civilians in the example, and yes i would be OK with that if Russia was doing to us what Lebanon does to Israel. Right now Russia is content just to mess with our politics, but I can see a day where why not back domestic terror in Canada. 

 

I'm not going to sit in judgement of Israel on this one, when I'm quite certain most people in Canada would choose some kind of preventative action if we were faced with the same stuff. 

 

So Israel is completely justified and the good guys in this in your mind?

[DeNiro]

9 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

Do you have specific numbers of who was and who wasn't? Or are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? Every single device that exploded was owned by Hezbollah (terrorist organization) associate. If you are an associate of a terrorist organization - you are a terrorist by definition. There were no reports of collateral damage, this is just you saying it.

 

The reports clearly state innocents were killed and injured.

 

So you’re a terrorist if you happen to be standing next to someone you had no idea was a terrorist? Interesting take.

 

[Coconuts]

9 minutes ago, RomanPer said:

 

In 1972 Israel killed one of the organizers of Munich massacre by putting a bomb into his phone. It wasn't even a cell phone at the time. 1996 Yahya Ayyash, known as "The Engineer", responsible for several bombings of Israeli citizens, had his head blown by a bomb concealed in a cell phone. From technology perspective, all this has been possible for years. Government using any type of technology to harm its citizens is completely unrelated to technology availability. If government wants to harm its citizens - they will find a way, cell phones or not. They have other means to do it, no need to go to this level of technology. Also, usually western governments that want to hurt individual citizens of their own countries try to keep it quiet, without drawing attention to these events. Government can put a bomb in your car, but do they?

 

Like I said, you were probably better informed regarding the weaponization of technology. Thing is, most people probably aren't. I'm sure you can understand why seeing this bit of news come up would send off alarm bells in the minds of many folks, I doubt I was alone in thinking about the implications of weaponizing phones when seeing the news. The average person probably doesn't have an extensive knowledge of explosives history. 

 

But you're not wrong, if governments want to harm their citizens they will, one way or another. I suppose I question the use of explosive phones more in a US context, I don't really see it happening in Canada for example. But the US is a different animal entirely.