An illustration of media bias

[laughing dog]

Every one hit someone associated with Hezbollah, unfortunately in a few cases that was family members of the intended targets rather than the targets themselves.

The same can be said about landmines.

That's ridiculous.
The same cannot possibly be said of landmines.

Israel targeted a violent Muslim terrorists group. They succeeded in trashing a bunch of the violent terrorist group. A tiny handful of the terrorist's civilian compadres got trashed as well. Tragic, but predictable, results of consorting with violent Muslim supremacists. Or any violent people, like Hamas or Iran or Hezbollah or whatever.

It's nothing like landmines.
Tom

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with. Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

 

[laughing dog]

It's a sympathy piece. Sympathy for terrorists? How can you not see how biased this is?

It is NOT a sympathy piece for terrorists.

Are they not terrorists?

Is it not a sympathy piece?

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

The children are terrorists? Every person maimed was a terrorist? Is it that all brown Muslims are terrorists to you?

And no, it is NOT a sympathy piece. This what journalists are supposed to do, show the human side of war, the bloody consequences of conflict.

It is a sympathy piece for the few civilian victims.

Sympathy is a normal reaction of decent people towards innocent victims.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That is one biased way to describe it, since some civilians were injured as well.

I know I am being biased when I remember how many civvies were killed on 7th Oct.

WHATABOUTISMMMMM

Also yes you're being biased if you *only* look at the atrocities being committed by one side. This isn't hard.

 

[Toni]

[URL u

2) Even perfectly precise surgery usually involves some other damage. If surgeons didn't do other damage there would be no issue of healing after an operation.

That is utter nonsense. Excising an anatomical problem perfectly would still involve healing of some sort.

Stooping to such unnecessary pedantry makes your position seem more desperate and less rational.

I recently had a bit of surgery. Zero cutting, the only destructive force was a laser and it was aimed at a kidney stone, not at any part of my anatomy. Ok, yes, there was healing necessary at the site because the stone was expected to have done a bit of damage in being lodged there. But you have no sensation in the ureters, the healing there is inherently painless. So why did I have any after effects?? And why was it done under general anesthesia?

The kidney stone was located within your anatomy—I am assuming in your ureter. But it had to pass through your ureter and bladder to reach the stone. While minimally invasive, it is still invasive. It is also possible that there was some small amount of thermal damage—a known, if uncommon risk. And of course, damage from the stone itself.

 

[Derec]

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with.

True. Except for wives. They most likely knew whom they were marrying.
However, these household members have a choice in whether to operate their terrorist relative's beeper.

Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Who said that they deserved it?

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

Any weapon of war has a potential for collateral damage. You have conceded that this potential was "significantly reduced" using the pager gambit. So this operation is nothing like land mines. Which, btw, land mines have a legitimate military use and even they can be used responsibly as well, by mapping their locations.

 

[laughing dog]

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with.

True. Except for wives. They most likely knew whom they were marrying.

What if the marriage occurred prior to the husband becoming a terrorist?

However, these household members have a choice in whether to operate their terrorist relative's beeper.

Riiight,because beepers only are used for terrorist activities.

Are YOU implying these civilians deserved it?

Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Who said that they deserved it?

I made a response to a direct quote saying “imply”

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

Any weapon of war has a potential for collateral damage. You have conceded that this potential was "significantly reduced" using the pager gambit. So this operation is nothing like land mines. Which, btw, land mines have a legitimate military use and even they can be used responsibly as well, by mapping their locations.

No one said it was like land mines.

 

[Derec]

What if the marriage occurred prior to the husband becoming a terrorist?

I said "likely". Besides, terror groups recruit their members young, usually still in their teens. It is unlikely they was already married.

Riiight,because beepers only are used for terrorist activities.

Pretty much. The only reason Hezbollah got all these pagers is because they thought that cell phones would be too easy for Israel to track.

I made a response to a direct quote saying “imply”

So, more of your fruitless semantic games?

No one said it was like land mines.

So, what's your point then?

 

[Derec]

It is a sympathy piece for the few civilian victims.
Sympathy is a normal reaction of decent people towards innocent victims.

Some of them were civilians. There was one Hezbollah terrorist and one Hezbollah propagandist among those featured in the piece.

 

[Toni]

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with.

True. Except for wives. They most likely knew whom they were marrying.
However, these household members have a choice in whether to operate their terrorist relative's beeper.

Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Who said that they deserved it?

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

Any weapon of war has a potential for collateral damage. You have conceded that this potential was "significantly reduced" using the pager gambit. So this operation is nothing like land mines. Which, btw, land mines have a legitimate military use and even they can be used responsibly as well, by mapping their locations.

Sometimes you don't know the 'real' person your romantic partner is until you are already married. Some people are good at keeping a good face during courtship. Sometimes we can all have love goggles on. Sometimes, different aspects of personalities come out over time, or are triggered by traumatic events or illness or serious upset in routine--job loss, for example, can trigger a serious depression.

And sometimes things that don't bug you early on do bug you later. And sometimes your lovely spouse can turn out to be not so lovely at work--something I recently learned about my spouse, much to my surprise but now I understand a few things I could not figure out. But in our marriage I also learned that my husband can be extraordinarily patient and kind.

This is just a bit of life lesson not necessarily pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

[laughing dog]

What if the marriage occurred prior to the husband becoming a terrorist?

I said "likely". Besides, terror groups recruit their members young, usually still in their teens. It is unlikely they was already married. [/qu

Riiight,because beepers only are used for terrorist activities.

Pretty much. The only reason Hezbollah got all these pagers is because they thought that cell phones would be too easy for Israel to track.

You are familiar with the household use and routines of alleged terrorists?

It seems you are working pretty hard to imply those civilians deserved their fate.

I made a response to a direct quote saying “imply”

So, more of your fruitless semantic games?

Are you feigning obtuseness?I replied to TomC

No one said it was like land mines.

So, what's your point then?

My point was that both involve collateral damage. Normally, you are not this obtuse. Are you okay?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[URL u

2) Even perfectly precise surgery usually involves some other damage. If surgeons didn't do other damage there would be no issue of healing after an operation.

That is utter nonsense. Excising an anatomical problem perfectly would still involve healing of some sort.

Stooping to such unnecessary pedantry makes your position seem more desperate and less rational.

I recently had a bit of surgery. Zero cutting, the only destructive force was a laser and it was aimed at a kidney stone, not at any part of my anatomy. Ok, yes, there was healing necessary at the site because the stone was expected to have done a bit of damage in being lodged there. But you have no sensation in the ureters, the healing there is inherently painless. So why did I have any after effects?? And why was it done under general anesthesia?

Thank you for confirming my point that your claim of no issue of healing after an operation was false.

Foot, meet bullet.

That side discussion was because of the claim that "surgical precision" is has no unwanted effects.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Every one hit someone associated with Hezbollah, unfortunately in a few cases that was family members of the intended targets rather than the targets themselves.

The same can be said about landmines.

That's ridiculous.
The same cannot possibly be said of landmines.

Israel targeted a violent Muslim terrorists group. They succeeded in trashing a bunch of the violent terrorist group. A tiny handful of the terrorist's civilian compadres got trashed as well. Tragic, but predictable, results of consorting with violent Muslim supremacists. Or any violent people, like Hamas or Iran or Hezbollah or whatever.

It's nothing like landmines.
Tom

Civilian household members, especially minors, may have no choice about who they must consort with. Seems rather callous or sociopathic to imply they deserved their fate due to their unchosen living arrangements.

Making the pagers lethal weapons is a clever way of getting at one’s targets and significantly reducing possible collateral damage, especially compared to land mine use. But both involve collateral damage to civilians, just at vastly different magnitudes. Which is what I believe was unapologetic’s point.

The thing is he compared what's probably the most surgical strike of modern times to what's probably the most indiscriminate weapon that's actually used.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

[URL u

2) Even perfectly precise surgery usually involves some other damage. If surgeons didn't do other damage there would be no issue of healing after an operation.

That is utter nonsense. Excising an anatomical problem perfectly would still involve healing of some sort.

Stooping to such unnecessary pedantry makes your position seem more desperate and less rational.

I recently had a bit of surgery. Zero cutting, the only destructive force was a laser and it was aimed at a kidney stone, not at any part of my anatomy. Ok, yes, there was healing necessary at the site because the stone was expected to have done a bit of damage in being lodged there. But you have no sensation in the ureters, the healing there is inherently painless. So why did I have any after effects?? And why was it done under general anesthesia?

The kidney stone was located within your anatomy—I am assuming in your ureter. But it had to pass through your ureter and bladder to reach the stone. While minimally invasive, it is still invasive. It is also possible that there was some small amount of thermal damage—a known, if uncommon risk. And of course, damage from the stone itself.

No idea on the thermal, they expected some damage from the stone.

The point is "surgical precision" doesn't mean perfection.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Any weapon of war has a potential for collateral damage. You have conceded that this potential was "significantly reduced" using the pager gambit. So this operation is nothing like land mines. Which, btw, land mines have a legitimate military use and even they can be used responsibly as well, by mapping their locations.

The problem is that in combat such mapping often fails. Where mines make sense is when not at war: things like the DMZ between the Koreas.

 

[Toni]

[URL u

2) Even perfectly precise surgery usually involves some other damage. If surgeons didn't do other damage there would be no issue of healing after an operation.

That is utter nonsense. Excising an anatomical problem perfectly would still involve healing of some sort.

Stooping to such unnecessary pedantry makes your position seem more desperate and less rational.

I recently had a bit of surgery. Zero cutting, the only destructive force was a laser and it was aimed at a kidney stone, not at any part of my anatomy. Ok, yes, there was healing necessary at the site because the stone was expected to have done a bit of damage in being lodged there. But you have no sensation in the ureters, the healing there is inherently painless. So why did I have any after effects?? And why was it done under general anesthesia?

The kidney stone was located within your anatomy—I am assuming in your ureter. But it had to pass through your ureter and bladder to reach the stone. While minimally invasive, it is still invasive. It is also possible that there was some small amount of thermal damage—a known, if uncommon risk. And of course, damage from the stone itself.

No idea on the thermal, they expected some damage from the stone.

The point is "surgical precision" doesn't mean perfection.

I hope you recover quickly.


I’ve never had a kidney stone before but I understand they are extremely painful.

 

[laughing dog]

[URL u

2) Even perfectly precise surgery usually involves some other damage. If surgeons didn't do other damage there would be no issue of healing after an operation.

That is utter nonsense. Excising an anatomical problem perfectly would still involve healing of some sort.

Stooping to such unnecessary pedantry makes your position seem more desperate and less rational.

I recently had a bit of surgery. Zero cutting, the only destructive force was a laser and it was aimed at a kidney stone, not at any part of my anatomy. Ok, yes, there was healing necessary at the site because the stone was expected to have done a bit of damage in being lodged there. But you have no sensation in the ureters, the healing there is inherently painless. So why did I have any after effects?? And why was it done under general anesthesia?

Thank you for confirming my point that your claim of no issue of healing after an operation was false.

Foot, meet bullet.

That side discussion was because of the claim that "surgical precision" is has no unwanted effects.

That is not what “no issue of healing” means in English.

 

[TomC]

The point is "surgical precision" doesn't mean perfection.

Your personal example wasn't terribly clear, to me surgery involves cutting skin and/or flesh. But I had no trouble understanding your point.
Surgery on an inflamed appendix, or the surgical removal of an ectopic baby, or any such thing causes damage. But the disastrous damage caused by not cutting is so much worse. A good surgeon minimizes the damage and maximizes the patient's health.

What Israel did was surgically precise. They took out thousands of violent terrorists with minimal damage to anyone else. The net benefits to humanity vastly outweigh the harm caused by the operation. That's why I consider it an extremely moral action, even if the apologists for Muslim supremacists want to focus on the handful of innocent casualties.
Tom

 

[Tigers!]

That is one biased way to describe it, since some civilians were injured as well.

I know I am being biased when I remember how many civvies were killed on 7th Oct.

WHATABOUTISMMMMM

Also yes you're being biased if you *only* look at the atrocities being committed by one side. This isn't hard.

Hamas has committed actrocities and so has Israel. But only Israel is being held to account for the ones they're committed.
That's a bias that concerns me.

 

[Tigers!]

However, these household members have a choice in whether to operate their terrorist relative's beeper.

Riiight,because beepers only are used for terrorist activities.

Only those particular beepers were used for terrorists activities. Terrorists were given them. If family members were hurt by these beepers then Hezbollah has a PR problem.
It is also worth noting that there not been a single report of any non-Hezobllah beeper blowing up.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

That is one biased way to describe it, since some civilians were injured as well.

I know I am being biased when I remember how many civvies were killed on 7th Oct.

WHATABOUTISMMMMM

Also yes you're being biased if you *only* look at the atrocities being committed by one side. This isn't hard.

Hamas has committed actrocities and so has Israel. But only Israel is being held to account for the ones they're committed.
That's a bias that concerns me.

It's happening on either side. Some people are only holding Israel accountable. Some people are only holding Hamas accountable.