IDF: Whoops, tee hee.

  • npz@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    127
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Well they’re still blowing up kids with these things so idk if it’s the most brilliant targeting technique

    • Vent@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Compared to dumping white phosphorus over hospitals and refugee camps, killing 2 (?) children during an attack that targeted hundreds/thousands is many orders of magnitude more precise. I hate dead innocents as much as anyone, but you gotta admit the pagers were effective and included way less collateral damage than the methods Isreal has employed in recent history.

      The point of the post isn’t to praise the pagers attack. It’s to point out that Isreal is capable of causing less collateral damage in Gaza but chooses not to.

      • TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        but you gotta admit the pagers were effective and included way less collateral damage than the methods Isreal has employed in recent history.

        Do you admit that mass gas chambers are an effective way to kill people ?

      • Hlodwig@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        59
        ·
        14 hours ago

        You do realise targets in Gaza and targets in Lebanon are not the same? On one hand you have fighters shielding themselves behind civilians and dont even know what a pager is and why they would use it, on the other hand you have political and operative leaders on these fighters that need these pagers to stay low profile and untaped…

    • Microw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      14 hours ago

      It’s an Obama type technique. Sure, you might blow up a few innocents, but the rate of eliminated enemies vs killed innocents is better than in traditional warfare, so a numbers guy would always go for that one.

      • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Leaked official documents show that that wasn’t really the case as the public was led to believe

        Quotes

        The White House and Pentagon boast that the targeted killing program is precise and that civilian deaths are minimal. However, documents detailing a special operations campaign in northeastern Afghanistan, Operation Haymaker, show that between January 2012 and February 2013, U.S. special operations airstrikes killed more than 200 people. Of those, only 35 were the intended targets. During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets. In Yemen and Somalia, where the U.S. has far more limited intelligence capabilities to confirm the people killed are the intended targets, the equivalent ratios may well be much worse.

        The documents show that the military designated people it killed in targeted strikes as EKIA — “enemy killed in action” — even if they were not the intended targets of the strike. Unless evidence posthumously emerged to prove the males killed were not terrorists or “unlawful enemy combatants,” EKIA remained their designation, according to the source. That process, he said, “is insane. But we’ve made ourselves comfortable with that. The intelligence community, JSOC, the CIA, and everybody that helps support and prop up these programs, they’re comfortable with that idea.”

        The source described official U.S. government statements minimizing the number of civilian casualties inflicted by drone strikes as “exaggerating at best, if not outright lies.”