Israel hacked pagers across Lebanon causing them to explode, injuring thousands (over 300 critically) and killing at least 9 including small children.
This seems to be the first wide spread untargeted military cyberattack against civilian devices intended to cause widespread injury and death.
It is surmised small explosives were planted by the IDF on the pagers before they were sold to the public, but this has not been verified.
So far America denies involvement.
newtboysays...

A second wave of random untargeted bombings has killed one and injured hundreds as walkie talkies were targeted and exploded, many in public crowded areas with children present.
This is terrorism plain and simple. The US cannot continue unconditional support any nation that mass mails bombs to the citizens of another country.

bcglorfsays...

Alot of assumptions there though...

First that it even was Israel. Which seems a reasonable assumption though.

My big difference with you though is around being untargeted. From all appearances the affected devices appear to have been almost entirely in the hands of Hezbollah members. That makes the better assumption that Israel(or whomever is responsible) actually was able to distribute the devices directly to Hezbollah itself for internal distribution.

Say what you will about the attack, but 'untargeted' seems a poor descriptor. Heck, even carefully planned out sniper operations on the same number of enemy operatives would likely have a higher collateral casualty count. At least acknowledge this attack, for everything else that it is, was highly selective of Hezbollah members and those within an extremely close proximity of them.

newtboysaid:

A second wave of random untargeted bombings has killed one and injured hundreds as walkie talkies were targeted and exploded, many in public crowded areas with children present.
This is terrorism plain and simple. The US cannot continue unconditional support any nation that mass mails bombs to the citizens of another country.

newtboysays...

It is a very safe assumption, I’ll apologize to umption if it turns out to be wrong.

“From all appearances”?
That’s a big assumption, and doesn’t match what I’ve seen, at least some were sold to the public including children….and all were detonated in public which means the collateral victims are 100% random. Even if they were first sold only to Hezbollah, another assumption, many definitely made it into the secondary resale market, which was 100% guaranteed from the start.
How many random bombs mailed/sold around the country by another country are OK? 10? 100? 1000? There may have been tens of thousands of devices spread around the country.

I do not acknowledge this was targeted or selective, the methodology makes that impossible and the mere suggestion ridiculous. “Those in close proximity” to the randomly distributed bombs exploded in public, or in buildings that burned from the devices, or accidents with victims that were driving, etc…. are random innocent victims even if you assume (with no basis or rationality) that the devises were miraculously only in Hezbollah hands and decide that targeting them for terroristic bombings is somehow acceptable.

Israel has a long history of ignoring the massive collateral damage of tens of thousands of innocent victims, mainly children, they intentionally cause by targeting their “enemies” when they can do the most collateral damage consistently, despite having the technology and capacity to do surgical attacks with minimal risk, and are this genocidally barbarous when defending themselves from mostly rock throwing children and fireworks and an occasional gunshot on a damage/death scale <1% what Israel returns.

This act again makes the Israeli government a terrorist government, this was a massive terrorist bombing, no matter what the objective, and likely another war crime. We should in no way be supporting or defending a terrorist nation that is under legitimate criminal accusations of war crimes from international courts. It’s not difficult.

bcglorfsaid:

Alot of assumptions there though...

First that it even was Israel. Which seems a reasonable assumption though.

My big difference with you though is around being untargeted. From all appearances the affected devices appear to have been almost entirely in the hands of Hezbollah members. That makes the better assumption that Israel(or whomever is responsible) actually was able to distribute the devices directly to Hezbollah itself for internal distribution.

Say what you will about the attack, but 'untargeted' seems a poor descriptor. Heck, even carefully planned out sniper operations on the same number of enemy operatives would likely have a higher collateral casualty count. At least acknowledge this attack, for everything else that it is, was highly selective of Hezbollah members and those within an extremely close proximity of them.

siftbotsays...

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More