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.

What is mind blowing is that you can read a whole thread and not actually listen to what people are saying. They don't agree that setting off 1000s of bombs when you have no idea where they are is "literally the most targeted attack in history against a terrorist group". It's quite simple really.

Obviously they have done nothing right according to some. They shouldn't fight terrorism after the 7th October assault into their country. They apparently should focus on more precise targeting of terrorists, until they do and then they shouldn't do that either. 🙄 They should probably just do nothing and let hamas and hezbollah continue to attack.

@TheOliveGoose it's just absurd to deny that this was a targeted attack. Incredibly so by historic standards.

Out of interest if you feel it was insufficiently precise how do you feel it compares with Hezbollah's attacks on Israel in terms of precision?

Have people been asking for more targeted strikes?

I think that has been the case, but will anyone say yes to this now

They should fight against terrorism*

• Within the law.

How would you fight terrorism? What is acceptable in your view

I've seen lots of posts on mn where people have said surely they could avoid so.many casualties in the war by doing more precise strikes.

They might not admit that they suggested this now. True.

You aren't allowed to.post from other threads but take a look across conflict in the middle east threads and you will see those types of comments. They have done a more precise strike going for Hezbollah issued pagers or cell phones .

Sitting down and reaching an agreement. Same way uk finished with terrorism
Same way Spain finished with terrorism
Same way Colombia finished with terrorism.

killing innocent civilians , thousand of them children, is not the way to fight terrorism and acceptable in my view

I hope both sides do sit down and end this conflict.

As I have said previously on this thread I think both are incredibly reckless and anyone that supports either should take a long hard look at themselves.

Someone should have sat down before October 7th I agree, we would not have this escalation now

Well they have sat down, many times. I don’t see a solution in my lifetime.

Indeed. However it’s not the first escalation that has happened , though by far this is the worse one.

with the current government in Israel and hamas I don’t see one either

@TheOliveGoose so how are Israel supposed to defend themselves and fight back against these constant attacks?

Do you think that this is the way forward then, would you advocate for Palestinians to launch a 'targeted attack' against the IDF in this way? Would you see Israeli mums injured and weeping in the supermarket, see Israeli children blown up, see 1000s of people left traumatised and agree with the OP that it would be an 'audacious and successful' way for them to fight back against apartheid and illegal occupation?

To me personally it doesn't feel like that would ever be an acceptable form of resistance but you feel differently because it is 'incredibly targeted'?

Within International law of course.

Can you give an example of what this would be for taking out terrorists such as Hezbollah?

You can Google International law EasternStandard.

Just to move the discussion on, do people have an actual method in mind when they talk about this?

I'm interested if they are envisaging something that is realistic

The pager attack was on hezbollah who keep firing rockets into Israel. I imagine they want them to stop firing rockets and asking nicely doesn't work.
Hezbollah in Lebanon aren't occupied by Israel and so that is not resistance to occupation of their country.

Yes, I've certainly said that. By "more precise strikes" I mean taking action to ensure you only hit the intended target and minimise civilian casualties.

Dropping a bunker busting bomb on a school with civilians and children in it because Hamas might be underneath is not "precise". Neither is putting explosives in devices when you don't know where they will be and who will be holding them.

A "more precise strike" is the kind of action the IDF took to assassinate Haniyeh in Tehran. Killing only the target and his immediate associates deep within hostile territory.

Really? It was on Hezbollah? I had no idea

I don't think asking nicely will stop Israel illegally occupying and implementing apartheid on Palestinians. The IDF are as legitimate a target for Palestinians as Hezbollah are for Israel. So you support them setting off 1000s of 'precision' bombs across Israel? A yes or no will suffice.

Whatever Israel like that is within International law would be fine.