Where would the people evacuate to? Why is it always assumed thats a valid option?

I’m not condoning violence but all of these better options people listed have been tried over and over, and Palestinians were dieing long before October 7th.

Look up how many palestinian children the IDF killed in 2023 prior to the attack.

Tell me what’s the right answer when another group of people controls your life and kills your family members.

Israel has been just as if not more violent than Hamas, its bullshit to defend them. Defending themselves my ass, defenders don’t steal land.

They wanted to cause fear, which is terrorism.

Well it seems its up to the attacker to decide what is considered valid military targets. Al Qaeda viewed 9/11 as a valid military target.

Indiscriminate killing is always bad, no matter how targeted you think it is. In this case it was mass maiming, oh and a few kids died right? That’ll teach em to stop being bad people won’t it!

Maybe the truth is both will happen, but its not clear which would be the majority opinion, or the opinion of those in power.

And you are saying noone is allowed to fight on their own land, as it endangers the public.

Because that time of day is when the most people will be out in public. It seems deliberately designed to cause as much damage as widely as possible. Likely to cause fear in the population.

Wishful thinking, they aren’t fighting because they want to. Noone likes violence.

Thats a fair opinion, although I think its likely to cause the opposite reactions than you listed. But again, who really knows.

Also I’m sure most people in most places are good people, just like anywhere, Lebanon included.

Sort of telling how you can teach people to associate good thoughts with awful things. Conditioning is a bitch.

I’ll save you time. Licensed factory in Europe, making Chinese beepers, was compromised or owned by Israel. They then put explosives in the pagers and set them to explode when paged a certain code.

They knew hezbollah was the purchaser, and would disperse them amongst its members.

I think its stupid unless it stopped some imminent horrible attack. Otherwise, Israel has given themselves away, and only killed 8 people for it. Maybe they had trouble rigging them to steal their communications.

Oh so everyone there who had a pager must have been a bad guy. Got it, solid logic. Can’t wait for the war to spread further.

As does america have non-combat elements too.

Its not rocket science how they did it. What is the impressive part? Are we really just going to say civilians don’t matter? Is it impressive to you because of how many people were hurt?

In no way is it required to respect the craft or the method.

National order isnt based on tit for tat. If someone commits a war crime against you it doesnt mean you get to do it too.

In my opinion the time of day they chose to blow them shows they wanted as much collateral damage as they could.

What’s the advantage of making excuses for committing war crimes?

Because anyone within 5 meters of the pager also was hurt.

Dontcha member when 4chan was classy?!

Well that all doesn’t matter much. If AI is used to cause harm, it should be regulated. If that frustrates you then go get the laws changed that allow shitty companies to ruin good ideas.

So what if its closer? Its still not an accurate description, because thats not what AI does.

Thats really interesting with Judaism and Christianity, I was not aware they overlapped that much and were so different, I mostly assumed Judaism diverged and has its own thing.

That sort of brings up the next question though, how did people deal with being aware of competing traditions? Or were they just normally only exposed to one at a time? Was it common for something new to be brought to a tribe and they have to reckon with how it fits with their current beliefs?

I suppose its easy now to see the steps one might take to leave a religion or join another, but I can’t translate that to back when people didnt travel as much and everything had to be copied by hand or mouth.

Why do you think that old religions like Greek and roman mythology were allowed to slide into widely accepted fiction while others, which often have similarly outlandish stories, are held up as at least a reference to some divine truth?

Is that the right question to ask? I dont like the easy answer that gets spread around of “they just aren’t raised to be critical of their beliefs”. How did people back then make such a decision as what religion to follow?