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??
Removed by mod
So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?
Can’t fucking be both, can it?
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
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.