Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it. Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Because bystanders were not deliberately targeted by the pager attack. They were collateral. If I launch 20 rockets at a military base and a couple of them go astray and several civilians are killed, that is not a terrorist attack, even if I was aware of the possibility of that happening. Should I have been more careful? Maybe, but that is a different discussion. If I launch those rockets at a marketplace with the intention of killing/terrorizing civilians, that would be a terrorist attack. And that is the difference between the pager attack and Oct 7: intent.
The dead and the traumatized thank you for your wise observations: this helped them a lot see how Israel is so benevolent making people explode in their country.
Which military base did the pagers go off in? This is more like dropping bombs on a school or hospital because you think there are some military personnel inside. Oh wait, they do that too. I can’t believe Israel managed to get a bunch of idiots to defend IED’s.
One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.
The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a “terrorist group” and the IDF “an army” is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That’s just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That’s terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should be amended:
terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.
Two health workers and two children were killed, many from the civilian branch of the governent were injured (which were blatantly categorized as Hizbullah fighters). Even if not a single civilian were killed or hurt, some of these pagers exploded in grocery stores and other public spaces effectively terrorizing and traumatizing the local population.
So yes, it was a terrorist attack. Recently, Israeli occupation in Gaza was added to the list of genocides in wikipedia, this should be added as a list of terrorist attacks in the middle east.
When the alternative is Hezbollah drawing their country further into war? Trying to stop them yourself would expose yourself and your family to a lot worse… I’d take that Hezbro’s balls being blown off at the checkout next to me any day
Hezbollah only exists because of Occupations and invasions by Israel
1982
The 1982 Lebanon war began on 6 June 1982, when Israel invaded again for the purpose of attacking the Palestine Liberation Organization. The Israeli army laid siege to Beirut. During the conflict, according to Lebanese sources, between 15,000 and 20,000 people were killed, mostly civilians.
On 16 February 1985, Shia Sheik Ibrahim al-Amin declared a manifesto in Lebanon, announcing a resistance movement called Hezbollah, whose goals included combating the Israeli occupation. During the South Lebanon conflict (1985–2000) the Hezbollah militia waged a guerrilla campaign against Israeli forces occupying Southern Lebanon and their South Lebanon Army proxies.
Throughout the painstaking process of confirming the Israeli withdrawal, Hizballah was at pains to declare its commitment to recovering the last millimeter of Lebanese territory, but it also acknowledged that it would not act hastily to reinitiate violence. In sum, Hizballah’s behavior and deference to state authority have worked to its political advantage. It reaped recognition in an unprecedented meeting between Nasrallah and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who praised Hizballah’s restraint and its promise of cooperation. The meeting with Annan offers a remarkable contrast with Hizballah’s earlier days, when it was hostile to the UN and especially to the UN force in
the south.
Without an agreement between Syria and Israel, there will be little pressure on Hizballah to disarm. Syria’s calculated strategy is to allow Hizballah to serve as a constant reminder of the consequences of continuing to occupy the Golan Heights.This is a role that Hizballah is happy to play, given its enmity toward Israel. At the same time, it remains profoundly aware of the political costs of bringing destruction down on the heads of its supporters, and this further reduces the prospect that Hizballah will initiate attacks on Israel
The doctrine is named after the Dahiya suburb of Beirut, where the Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah has its headquarters, which the Israeli military leveled during its assault on Lebanon in the summer of 2006 that killed nearly 1,000 civilians, about a third of them children, and caused enormous damage to the country’s civilian infrastructure, including power plants, sewage treatment plants, bridges, and port facilities.
It was formulated by then-General Gadi Eisenkot when he was Chief of Northern Command. As he explained in 2008 referring to a future war on Lebanon: "What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on… We will apply disproportionate force on it (village) and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases… This is not a recommendation. This is a plan. And it has been approved.” Eisenkot went on to become chief of the general staff of the Israeli military before retiring in 2019.
While it became official Israeli military doctrine after Israel’s 2006 attack on Lebanon, Israel’s military has used disproportionate force and targeted Palestinian, Lebanese, and other civilians since Israel was established in 1948 based on the ethnic cleansing of indigenous Palestinians, including dozens of massacres to force them to flee for their lives.
Until recently, the border had been relatively quiet. Occasional rockets or drones crossed from Lebanon into Israel without leading to serious escalation, while Israel violated Lebanese airspace more than 22,000 times from 2007 to 2022.
While the withdrawal was certified by the United Nations, Lebanon disputed it, arguing that the Shebaa Farms was part of its territory, and not part of the Syrian Golan Heights, which Israel continues to occupy.
So there are two separate issues here that lead to the current dispute: the first is that Israel occupies the Golan Heights and treats it as its own territory in violation of international law, and the second is that there was already a pre-existing disagreement between Syria and Lebanon over the border, prior to the Israeli occupation.
Ultimately, the only hope of the Lebanese retaining any kind of country long-term is to violently resist Israeli expansion. All of Lebanon is part of Israel’s long-term territorial ambitions. So yes, honestly, violence is necessary to resist Israeli expansion. Israel’s plan is that 100 years from now, Lebanon and Jordan will not exist. See Greater Israel.
The Germans in WW2 believed they were a special people chosen by God. This gave them the natural right to take over the lands of racially inferior peoples and to drive the existing inhabitants out through intimidation and violence. The modern Israeli right shares the same beliefs. They are indistinguishable; they just use different marketing.
The muslims think they have a divine right on the territory as well. That’s the very reason they didn’t accept a two state solution back in 1947.
But of course, once the IDF manages to capture that last Shebaa Farm, they can leverage that baby to [checks you nutcase conspiracy theory] horah their armoured divisions right through Jordan, Syria and Saudi-Arabia all the way into Baghdad unopposed
Hezbollah had to attack them to prevent this from happening
You’re saying it was not targeted at combatants, or that there was a lot of collateral damage?
Are those the only requirements you think make something an act of terror?
Which requirements are they missing, that are applicable to the pager attack?
Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Because bystanders were not deliberately targeted by the pager attack. They were collateral. If I launch 20 rockets at a military base and a couple of them go astray and several civilians are killed, that is not a terrorist attack, even if I was aware of the possibility of that happening. Should I have been more careful? Maybe, but that is a different discussion. If I launch those rockets at a marketplace with the intention of killing/terrorizing civilians, that would be a terrorist attack. And that is the difference between the pager attack and Oct 7: intent.
The dead and the traumatized thank you for your wise observations: this helped them a lot see how Israel is so benevolent making people explode in their country.
War sucks. Doesn’t make it a terrorist attack.
Which military base did the pagers go off in? This is more like dropping bombs on a school or hospital because you think there are some military personnel inside. Oh wait, they do that too. I can’t believe Israel managed to get a bunch of idiots to defend IED’s.
One key note is that Israel is worse at protecting civilians than Hamas is. By their own numbers, the IDF kills more civilians for every enemy soldier they kill than Hamas does. Hamas is actually a far more ethical army, in terms of civilian casualty ratios, than the IDF is.
The harsh truth is that the only reason we call Hamas a “terrorist group” and the IDF “an army” is classism. The IDF kills 10 civilians to destroy one Hamas fighter with a laser-guided bomb? That’s just collateral damage. Hamas kills 10 civilians to kill one IDF soldier with a truck bomb? That’s terrorism.
The definition of terrorism should be amended:
terrorism (n): violence committed by a group representing one demographic group against a wealthier demographic group.
Removed by mod
It’s explicitly a war crime, whether or not it was “targeted”.
https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/
Congratulations on being able to put on two matching socks today. I know it must have been challenging for you, but you persevered!
Two health workers and two children were killed, many from the civilian branch of the governent were injured (which were blatantly categorized as Hizbullah fighters). Even if not a single civilian were killed or hurt, some of these pagers exploded in grocery stores and other public spaces effectively terrorizing and traumatizing the local population.
So yes, it was a terrorist attack. Recently, Israeli occupation in Gaza was added to the list of genocides in wikipedia, this should be added as a list of terrorist attacks in the middle east.
More to the point, it was literally intended to terrorize.
Still, a lot more clinical than having to drop a bomb on each of these Hezbros. So overall very beneficial for the Lebanese civilians
Very beneficial to them to be traumatized and potentially injured or killed by a nation wide terrorist attack. Enough internet for today.
When the alternative is Hezbollah drawing their country further into war? Trying to stop them yourself would expose yourself and your family to a lot worse… I’d take that Hezbro’s balls being blown off at the checkout next to me any day
Hezbollah only exists because of Occupations and invasions by Israel
1982
Israeli Withdrawal
2006
2007 - Present
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/10/17/beyond-hezbollah-the-history-of-tensions-between-lebanon-and-israel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli–Lebanese_conflict
Your copypaste seems to be a tad one-sided there buddy
Do you think Hezbollah restarting hostilities with Israel is benefitting the Lebanese?
Ultimately, the only hope of the Lebanese retaining any kind of country long-term is to violently resist Israeli expansion. All of Lebanon is part of Israel’s long-term territorial ambitions. So yes, honestly, violence is necessary to resist Israeli expansion. Israel’s plan is that 100 years from now, Lebanon and Jordan will not exist. See Greater Israel.
Remember, these terms are identical:
“God’s Chosen People” = Übermensch
“God’s Promised Land” = Lebensraum
The Germans in WW2 believed they were a special people chosen by God. This gave them the natural right to take over the lands of racially inferior peoples and to drive the existing inhabitants out through intimidation and violence. The modern Israeli right shares the same beliefs. They are indistinguishable; they just use different marketing.
The muslims think they have a divine right on the territory as well. That’s the very reason they didn’t accept a two state solution back in 1947.
But of course, once the IDF manages to capture that last Shebaa Farm, they can leverage that baby to [checks you nutcase conspiracy theory] horah their armoured divisions right through Jordan, Syria and Saudi-Arabia all the way into Baghdad unopposed
Hezbollah had to attack them to prevent this from happening
🤡