At least 20 more people were killed and 450 injured in Lebanon on Wednesday after a series of new explosions of wireless devices rocked the South, the Bekaa and the southern suburbs of Beirut, according to the Ministry of Health and the Lebanese Red Cross.
You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.
These attempts at defending indiscriminate attacks on civilian population are fucking disgusting. I genuinely don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re defending the death of a 9-year-old girl.
More like “you want to kill a soccer player who did something very bad to you. You get a soccer ball and plant it full of explosives. You leave it on a football pitch. Not even necessarily the one the player you’re trying to kill uses. Just a pitch. Any pitch. Then you hope that the first person to touch the ball and explode is the person you intended. You end up killing several innocents and injuring hundreds.”
Despite all your shitty propaganda, THE STATEMENTS ARE STILL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can’t be “extremely surgical attacks” which accidentally kill innocent children.
That’s like saying you’re a vegan who eats meat. Doesn’t fucking work.
So was Israel’s attack “extremely targeted” and they 'chose* to kill a 9-year-old-girl OR were these terror attacks so uncontrolled and chaotic that a child died on accident?
Ah. So this 9-year-old-girl was killed on purpose then, I take it?
Since “People in the vicinity are not harmed” it had to have been targeted. Right? Right??
Killed on accident
So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?
Can’t fucking be both, can it?
Sure it can. Only people directly in contact with the pager were harmed. If a child holds it, then it is harmed.
The explosion only had a small area of lethal effect is what I’m saying. There are lots of videos of people close by the explosion being unaffected.
No, it can’t be both.
You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.
You’re on a soccer field and try to kick the ball into the goal, miss and hit a spectator. The goal was targeted, the spectator wasn’t.
The target was a Hezbollah member, the weapon was a pager bomb, the child is an innocent bystander hit by accident.
These attempts at defending indiscriminate attacks on civilian population are fucking disgusting. I genuinely don’t know how you sleep at night when you’re defending the death of a 9-year-old girl.
More like “you want to kill a soccer player who did something very bad to you. You get a soccer ball and plant it full of explosives. You leave it on a football pitch. Not even necessarily the one the player you’re trying to kill uses. Just a pitch. Any pitch. Then you hope that the first person to touch the ball and explode is the person you intended. You end up killing several innocents and injuring hundreds.”
Despite all your shitty propaganda, THE STATEMENTS ARE STILL MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can’t be “extremely surgical attacks” which accidentally kill innocent children.
That’s like saying you’re a vegan who eats meat. Doesn’t fucking work.
So was Israel’s attack “extremely targeted” and they 'chose* to kill a 9-year-old-girl OR were these terror attacks so uncontrolled and chaotic that a child died on accident?
It’s EITHER OR.