Pagers and walkie talkies .....audacious and successful strike against terrorists

[mids2019]

If a large number of members of Al Quaeda or ISIS were killed with a precise attack I think in the West there would be admiration and indeed satisfaction that such a military success had occurred.

However I am disturbed by the reporting of the targeted neutralization of terrorists within Lebanon with even the main stream press virtually describing those struck as civilians and questioning the legality and morality of this! Have we lost our moral compassess?

There were some unfortunate civil an deaths but given the scale of the strike this was a terrible inevitability. However the civil an to combatant rratio was very small in reality as the explosions were kinky d to a personal zone. Yet when we read the press we allow terrorist propaganda calling the events a massacre of even that trumped up word 'genocide' that people seem to love.

If Osama bin Laden had been brought to a local hospital would we have allowed weeping doctors to lament his injuries? Thought not.

There is also another more apt quote

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

That's a rather unpleasant thing to say. Taking pleasure or amusement in the blinding and disfigurement of others isn't something to be proud of.

Unfortunately it's par for the course right now and over the last few months.

It has been quite eye opening to witness the gleeful, almost celebratory posts on social media.

To anyone who quotes the bible as justification or excuse for anything, be it eye for an eye, or god promised us this land... I love this scene from The West Wing

I kind of want a crab puff now.

What is your purpose in equivocating over whether rapes were recorded on bodycams? I actually dont know whether they were but I kbow there is watertight testimony and other evidence that that many women were raped.

In reference to it being terrorists eyes I don’t think it’s bad in this context.

However, I do think @FrippEnos got it right with an eye for eye makes the whole world blind.

I think rapes are bad enough. If there aren’t images of them happening that doesn’t detract from the horror. Monsters raped and slaughtered,

I like it too. But those old rules ( that no longer seem relevant) made sense in a society where men could do whatever they wanted to anyone who was weaker physically. Nowadays our morality is ( hopefully) more evolved.

I was not equivocating, I read that about the body cams a few months back in an article posted on this board, and was responding to a post which had mentioned them in relation to rapes. My post also began by stating unequivocally that vicious rapes were committed by Hamas/Palestinians on Oct 7.

In the correct context, “an eye for eye” is supposed to mean that the injured party should not be permitted to exact excessive retribution so it’s not really appropriate to this situation where as well as terrorists, horrific injuries have been inflicted on innocent people with no connection to those terrorists other than being neighbours in the same appartment block. It’s disturbing that these lives can be so casually dismissed.
Furthermore, Israel now has the dubious distinction of being synonymous with “booby trap” and that’s not really a good thing long term.

What you say about the real meaning if ‘an eye for an eye’ is very interesting, thank you. I had always understood it just as being a rallying cry for revenge.

n she for an eye is a biblical expression. Apt I thought in a. region that seems heavily religous.

An eye for an eye is mentioned both in the Torah and Quran.

It’s from the book of Exodus so also in Christian teaching.The interpretation is the same. No excessive retribution. I think it’s dangerous to bandy the phrase about because it was meant to guide authorities dealing with justice, not an exhortation for tit for tat revenge.

Thank you again, as I said before, I had always just assumed it was a revenge, tit for tat exhortation.

Even then though it is deeply troubling when taken to excess.

I think Christians are more likely to highlight revenge is mine, sayeth the Lord

Though I doubt any true believers would be involved in either side.

If Israel wanted to 'genocide' Gaza, they would have achieved it on Oct 8th.

Genocidal intent doesn’t require reaching the legal threshold for genocide within 48hrs. Genocide can unfold at any rate. All the genocides recorded in history could have been done faster than they were.

Making this kind of spurious argument makes a mockery of any legitimate defence Israel has to the allegations of genocide before the ICJ. If you are going to defend Israel, at least use one of the plausible legal defences they have put to the court.

"The death of large numbers of civilians as collateral damage of military activity such as aerial bombings is excluded from the definition of genocide, even when they make up a significant portion of a nation's population."