In one sense this is much worse, and more terrifying than the run-of-the-mill IED’s used by militant groups. Having to be suspicious of everything around you would be maddening. It’s indiscriminate mass psychological warfare, where the collateral damage goes way beyond the people actually carrying the devices.
OK, I’m gonna tell a little story that we used to tell in my part of the country. In my part of the country they grow a lot of watermelons.
So there was this watermelon farmer who got upset that everybody kept sneaking into his fields at night and taking watermelons.
So he came up with his great idea that he put a sign at the edge of the field that said one of these watermelons is poison. Now he knew that no one could take a watermelon cause they wouldn’t know which one was poisoned. He was quite proud of this idea.
So we came back in the morning to see how his sign worked. And sure enough no watermelons have been taken overnight.
However, he noticed the number one on his sign had been crossed out and somebody had put two.
How is it “indiscriminate” if solely Hezbollah operatives were targeted?
A booby-trapped baby stroller is indiscriminate - it goes off when anyone touches it, friend, foe, or child. Israel attacked the communications of its enemy and literally nothing else. That’s inherently discriminating between friend and foe.
How is it “indiscriminate” if solely Hezbollah operatives were targeted?
Because said operatives were often within exploding distance of civilians when the pagers were detonated. Shrapnel, even from a small explosion, can be deadly and has a fairly large range. Especially if you don’t have line-of-sight to your target before detonating the device; you have no idea what or who is nearby when it goes off.
“Explosive” and “targeted” generally don’t go hand-in-hand.
In one sense this is much worse, and more terrifying than the run-of-the-mill IED’s used by militant groups. Having to be suspicious of everything around you would be maddening. It’s indiscriminate mass psychological warfare, where the collateral damage goes way beyond the people actually carrying the devices.
OK, I’m gonna tell a little story that we used to tell in my part of the country. In my part of the country they grow a lot of watermelons.
So there was this watermelon farmer who got upset that everybody kept sneaking into his fields at night and taking watermelons.
So he came up with his great idea that he put a sign at the edge of the field that said one of these watermelons is poison. Now he knew that no one could take a watermelon cause they wouldn’t know which one was poisoned. He was quite proud of this idea.
So we came back in the morning to see how his sign worked. And sure enough no watermelons have been taken overnight.
However, he noticed the number one on his sign had been crossed out and somebody had put two.
That is both genius and a total Bond villain origin story.
How is it “indiscriminate” if solely Hezbollah operatives were targeted?
A booby-trapped baby stroller is indiscriminate - it goes off when anyone touches it, friend, foe, or child. Israel attacked the communications of its enemy and literally nothing else. That’s inherently discriminating between friend and foe.
Because said operatives were often within exploding distance of civilians when the pagers were detonated. Shrapnel, even from a small explosion, can be deadly and has a fairly large range. Especially if you don’t have line-of-sight to your target before detonating the device; you have no idea what or who is nearby when it goes off.
“Explosive” and “targeted” generally don’t go hand-in-hand.