Israel launches new form of terrorism with its exploding pager attacks in Lebanon

Israel worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. Recent exploding pager attacks in Lebanon killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children.

Israel has launched a new form of terrorism according to former CIA director Leon Panetta, which he says will have far reaching “repercussions” throughout the world.

The terrorist campaign is said to have killed or injured mostly civilian, rather than military, members of Hezbollah and many non-members, including children, who are not engaged in the fighting against Israel.

Describing last week’s wave of remotely detonated pagers and walkie talkies in Lebanon, Panetta told CBS News on Sunday:

“This has gone right into the supply chain. When you have terror going into the supply chain, it makes people ask the question, ‘What the hell is next?’ This is a tactic that has repercussions, and we really don’t know what those repercussions are going to be.”

Panetta’s remarks, reported in the Times of Israel on September 23, referred to revelations that Israel had spent 15 years preparing the attacks, infiltrating mobile device supply chains to transform handheld electronics into remotely triggered bombs.

An indication of how far-reaching these repercussions will be was given by Panetta, also the former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

“The forces of war are largely in control right now,” Panetta continued, warning that the “ability to place an explosive in technology that is very prevalent these days” has brought the world into a new “war of terror,” in which anyone with a mobile electronic device may be targeted without warning.

“Mark my word, it is the battlefield of the future,” said Panetta, echoing reports that state “Israel’s pager attacks have changed the world,” leaving “us all vulnerable.”

The New York Times report presented a stark conclusion:

“But now that the line has been crossed, other countries will almost certainly start to consider this sort of tactic as within bounds.”

“It could be deployed against a military during a war or against civilians in the run-up to a war.”

The attacks conducted by Israel have been largely reported to have targeted members of Hezbollah. The examination of the facts tests the claim that the pagers were detonated solely against a “military” in this case. The United Nations has already condemned the tactic as a war crime.

Copycat attacks?

With the initial wave of attacks often presented as a “James Bond” style flash of brilliance, later reports considered the possibility of “copycat” attacks.

Philip Ingram, a former senior British military intelligence officer, told Britain’s inews, “There are real risks of copycat actions. A large organized crime group could do something like this.”

Yet the planting of explosives and ball-bearings in pagers requires a degree of coordination beyond the capability of non-state criminals. Ingram explained, “However, something of the scale and sophistication we have seen this week is really only the purview of a nation state actor.”

So far, only the nation state of Israel has dedicated its resources to the transformation of personal devices into instruments of death.

A war crime?

The attacks have been reported to have killed and injured thousands of “Hezbollah members,” giving the impression of a targeted wave of sophisticated assassinations of enemy soldiers. Yet two children were among the 37 dead, with a UN report showing a diplomat was killed in what it termed an act of “murder” and “a terrifying violation of international law.”

“Simultaneous attacks by thousands of devices … inevitably violate humanitarian law,” the report said, by “failing to distinguish” between civilians and combatants.

The Jerusalem Post reported that only “a majority” of the thousands injured and killed “were members of the group,” which is an admission that civilians were indeed targeted.

In addition to the “war crimes of murder, attacking civilians, and launching indiscriminate attacks,” the UN report pointed out that “[h]umanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects,” and that “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary.”

What is Hezbollah?

Hezbollah is not merely a military organization. It also runs supermarkets, provides education and healthcare, and has a political wing, with members elected to over a third of Lebanon’s Parliament. It is designated as a terrorist organization in its entirety by the United States, with various European nations reserving that label for its military wing alone.

The New York Post’s claim that “thousands of Hezbollah fighters” were injured in the attacks excludes this important distinction between civilian and military members, legitimizing the “horrifying wounds to the groins and hands” of people severely injured whilst at home or shopping in supermarkets.

The U.K.’s Channel Four News was more measured, reporting only that “Hezbollah fighters were among thousands injured” in the attacks, which also took place in Syria and in Iraq.

NPR’s report similarly offered no evidence that any of those killed and injured were in fact combat soldiers, stating, “Many, but not all, of the pagers and walkie-talkies that unexpectedly blew up over two days across Lebanon and in some neighboring countries were in the possession of Hezbollah fighters, functionaries or allies.”

Doctors in Lebanon reported “apocalyptic” scenes, with thousands of patients arriving at once with injuries to their eyes and hands.

A media success with no military goal?

Early reports questioned the military success of the operation, with the New York Times describing it as “a tactical success with no strategic goal.” In an additional report, the Times confirmed the operation was ordered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday, September 17.

The wave of heavy airstrikes on Lebanon which followed the detonation of pagers and walkie-talkies have also been reported as strikes on Hezbollah. With up to 500 killed, including 35 children, Reuters warned “tens of thousands of civilians” had begun to flee Southern Lebanon. The same report repeated Netanyahu’s address to the Lebanese people, in which he stated, “Israel’s war is not with you, it’s with Hezbollah.”

Yet the claim that Israel’s attacks are destroying Hezbollah’s military capability have been strongly challenged.

“This is bunkum,” said Alastair Crooke, who lives in Lebanon. The former British diplomat explained to Judge Andrew Napolitano that most of those targeted in the pager attacks were not military members at all.

Secondly, he says, Hezbollah’s missiles are buried deep underground, rendering the airstrikes practically useless in destroying them.

Crooke’s blunt dismissal of these claims follows questions asked about the military purpose of both stages of Israel’s assault on Lebanon.

Israel has ‘no plan for peace’

Israel’s pager attacks have been recognized as a logistical and media victory by intelligence experts, but reports have also shown they have had no effect on Hezbollah’s war-fighting capability.

Marc Polymeropoulos, a retired CIA officer who served in the Middle East told the Washington Post, “This is the most impressive kinetic operation I can recall in my career.”

“The scope was staggering.”

Yet the Post’s report goes on to cite White House and Israeli insiders expressing doubts over the move – and also concerning Israel’s apparent lack of any clear strategy at all.

“Some officials have questioned how much the United States should support Israel if that conflict spirals into a broader war that drags in the Americans even further,” said the Post, citing one anonymous “inside American adviser.”

“The U.S. will have to decide how much they want to do to help Israel, and I don’t know what the answer to that is,” said the source, who would only speak unidentified due to the “sensitive” nature of openly questioning U.S. support for Israel. The source went on:

“[The U.S. will] likely continue to supply Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself, but there are serious voices in the administration who wonder, ‘Israel did this to themselves – why should we help them?’”

As the Post also notes, “Israel did not inform its most important allies in Washington in advance, according to U.S. officials familiar with the matter.” Israel has neither confirmed nor denied it was responsible for the attacks.

Questions over Israeli grand strategy have persisted for months. In July, the Washington Post reported that Israel “has no plan for peace,” with no end in sight to its war in Gaza. In the wake of the pager attacks, Bronwen Maddox of the U.K.’s Chatham House concluded in a report filed from the Lebanon border, “The Hezbollah pager attacks prove that Israel has no strategy for peace.”

‘What’s the point?’

Additional reports also doubted any military rationale behind the attacks. In an article showcasing “Israel’s James Bond-style operation” former IDF officer Dr. Ahron Bregman asked, “What’s the point?”

Suggesting the goal was towards a media – and non-military impact – Bregman continued: “This Israeli operation will be at the heart of future Hollywood films, and for good reason, but let’s dive into the more grim reality.”

Bregman says in the absence of any “Israeli tanks” to follow up the attacks, their purpose may be to provoke a response from Hezbollah which “legitimizes” a major war.

“The Israelis are trying to humiliate Hezbollah – forcing it to react forcefully, which will give Israel the international legitimacy to embark on an all-out war with its sworn enemy.”

Warning of the dimensions of this conflict, Bregman, senior teaching fellow at King’s College London’s Department of War Studies, said, “These are dangerous days. It might be that we are marching into a big, regional, Middle Eastern war involving not only Israel and Hezbollah but also the likes of Iran, the Houthis in Yemen, as well as Shia militias in Syria and Iraq.”

Both waves of Israel’s attacks on Lebanon have been of questionable military value. Both have left the combat power of Hezbollah largely intact. The same cannot be said for the lives of those destroyed in them.

The White House is reportedly frustrated with Israel’s actions, seeing them as attempts to provoke a retaliation from Hezbollah and even Iran which would spark a regional war. According to the Washington Post, “U.S. officials also noted with angst that, for nearly a year, the White House and allies have worked to tamp the flames in Lebanon.”

Israel appears to be desperate to fan these flames. Its often insinuated goal is to draw the United States into a regional crisis the White House says it has been working to avoid.

With no plan for peace, Israel has worked in secret to launch, without warning, a new era of international terror. In the absence of any strategy beyond escalation, Israel appears now to be openly seeking to internationalize its war by any means at its disposal.

Related Topics:#FrankWright #LifeSiteNews IsraelExplodingHezbollahPagers IsraelHezbollah NewFormOfTerrorism?

Up Next

BC Conservative leader regrets getting COVID shots, says mandates were about control

Don't Miss

Are gender interventions helpful? First do no harm!: David Zitner for Inside Policy

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Two major banks leave UN Net Zero Banking Alliance in two weeks

armed forces / 5 hours ago

Top Brass Is On The Run Ahead Of Trump’s Return

Business / 5 hours ago

For the record—former finance minister did not keep Canada’s ‘fiscal powder dry’

conflict

Sending arms to Ukraine is unnecessarily placing American lives in danger

Published on December 18, 2024

Todayville

U.S. President Joe Biden signs the guest book during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the Ukrainian presidential palace on February 20, 2023, in Kyiv, Ukraine

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

Joe Biden’s direct military support, coupled with ignoring peace efforts and sidelining containment principles, could spark global conflict.

To understand why a congressional budget fight over continuing or possibly expanding the Ukraine-Russia war is so fraught with dangers, some background of the relevant history and politics must be considered.

Ukraine-Russian hostilities

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin initiated what he designated as his “special military operation.” He undertook this action in Ukraine which was an extension of the hostile acts that started in February 2014 with a U.S.-supported coup of the Ukraine government. But, recall that Putin approached Biden in late December 2021 through mid-February 2022 with proposals to forestall or avoid Russian military action mainly centering around assurances that Ukraine and other countries would not join NATO, an expansion policy which had its proximate beginnings at the end of the Cold War right after the reunification of Germany.

Putin did not approach Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky with such proposals because the United States, and specifically President Biden, was the sine qua non for making such a decision regarding Ukraine’s entrance into NATO both for the U.S. and NATO. Basically, Biden told Putin there was nothing to talk about, especially with regard to reaching any agreement on Ukraine not entering NATO.

Biden rejects Ukraine-Russia peace agreement

Biden and British Prime Minister Johnson refused to accept bona fide peace agreements reached and worked out between Ukraine and Russia during the first weeks of this unnecessary conflict achieved with the assistance of Israel’s 13th prime minister, Naftali Bennett. Former Fox News commentator Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote that Biden and Johnson urged Zelensky to reject a more than 100-page peace treaty, “each page of which had been initialed by both sides, and its essence accepted by the Kremlin and by Kyiv,” and that by trusting the U.S. and Britain for military assistance, eastern Ukraine could be protected and Ukraine would not have to make concessions to Putin.

For these reasons, Biden and Great Britain own this war and bear partial responsibility for the Ukraine, Russian, and other lives lost as well as other war costs incurred after the treaty’s rejection.

So, American, Russian, and Ukrainian citizens now suffer the political, economic, and military consequences of the myopic and imprudent judgments of Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, and perhaps much less so by Volodymyr Zelensky who apparently believed promises of continued economic and military support from Biden and Johnson.

Biden trashes Kennan Containment Doctrine

Containment worked! America avoided nuclear war.

Direct U.S./NATO Attacks on Russia

The headlines, of course, say that “Ukraine fires UK-made missiles” and that “Russia says Ukraine attacked it using U.S. long-range missiles.” Not so fast. Zelensky may have given the order to fire, or maybe even pushed the buttons, but the White House needs to explain to the American voters who paid for these weapons, who guided the missiles to their targets in the Russian homeland, and why it is not constitutionally and morally irresponsible for Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer to risk a much wider or even a worldwide nuclear holocaust to call Vladimir Putin’s bluff.

On November 24, Rebekah Koffler, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official, told Fox News that “we are now on the escalation ladder inching towards a nuclear war. Those ATACMS do not fire by themselves.”

Even if Ukrainian soldiers technically pushed the button, “the targeting of the weapons systems, ensuring that there is a proper flight trajectory of the missile, that it destroys the right target, and the actual battle damage it achieved that we wanted it to achieve, all requires U.S. personnel and U.S. satellites. This is why the Russians have stated that the United States and European targets are now in the crosshairs. In every wargame that we conducted back in the intelligence community ended up in a nuclear war.”

This is direct engagement.

In September, Vladimir Putin explained why a decision like Biden’s is radically different from all other “redlines.”

[T]his is not a question of whether the Kiev regime is allowed or not allowed to strike targets on Russian territory. It is already carrying out strikes … using Western-made long-range precision weapons. … This can only be done using the European Union’s satellites, or U.S. satellites. … [O]nly NATO military personnel can assign flight missions to these missile systems. … Therefore … It is about deciding whether NATO countries become directly involved in the military conflict or not. If this decision is made … this will mean that NATO countries – the United States and European countries – are at war with Russia.

Biden finesses radical policy change

Biden has still refused to take public ownership of his radical departure from George Kennan’s Cold War containment policy of communist powers when he committed the one cardinal sin of American diplomacy: authorizing the direct military attack of a nuclear opponent, however “small.”

The initial press coverage from the Associated Press on November 17 announced that President Biden had authorized Ukraine, for the first time, to use U.S.-made long-range missiles for use by Ukraine inside Russia, “according to a U.S. official and three people familiar with the matter…. The official and the people familiar with the matter were not authorized to discuss the decision publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.”

The stark refusal of even one Biden official to put their name to this monumentally dangerous and radical policy change is astonishing. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) noted on X that, “Joe Biden just set the stage for World War III[.] Let’s all pray it doesn’t come to that[.] Otherwise, we may never forget where we were [t]he moment we received this news.”

AP also noted that “Biden did not mention the decision during a speech at a stop to the Amazon rainforest in Brazil on his way to the Group of 20 summit.”

Press disguises Biden policy switch

Biden’s “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” approach to not acknowledging the political-military consequences of his own actions was received with favorable “silent” coverage from the nation’s compliant mainstream media.

Indeed, none of the following news organizations told readers that Biden has converted American military personnel and civilian employees into warfighters who are directly engaging Russian troops, equipment, buildings, and territory by his direction: Associated Press, New York Times, NBC-Washington, Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News, ABC-News, Public Broadcasting, Seattle Times, Minnesota Star Tribune, Miami Herald, and The Hill.

Checking the White House, the State Department, and the Defense Department websites for this period reveals no press releases, fact sheets, or acknowledgments about the unprecedented and radical missile policy change with Ukraine or any of its particulars. However, Biden’s White House website posted a note on November 20 expressing sympathy with the Transgender Day of Remembrance but is silent on the possible escalation toward World War III.

Even a week later, National Security Advisor John Kirby still did not acknowledge that Biden has authorized direct attacks on Russia in obvious disregard of Kennan’s successful policy of avoiding nuclear war by avoiding direct military to military conflict with nuclear powers. Below is an exchange between National Security Advisor John Kirby and a reporter at an “on the record” press gaggle:

QUESTION: In the past, you kind of downplayed [the] potential impact of the ATACMS on the battlefield and warned that allowing Ukraine to strike deep into Russia could lead to escalation by the Kremlin. How do you see it now?

KIRBY: Right now, they are able to use ATACMS to defend themselves, you know, in an immediate-need basis. And right now, you know, understandably, that’s taking place in and around Kursk, in the Kursk Oblast. I’d let the Ukrainians speak to their use of ATACMS and their targeting procedures and what they’re using them for and how well they’re doing. But nothing has changed about the – well, obviously we did change the guidance and gave them guidance that they could use them, you know, to strike these particular types of targets.

Biden’s war escalation ladder

At this point, in light of the grim statistics about a completely avoidable war killing and maiming young men and women, Americans are entitled to the truth, not to a rehash of tired legalisms about Ukraine’s right to defend itself.

On November 25, Judge Andrew Napolitano cited 27-year veteran former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, a frequent guest on Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” podcast, as confirming that Biden made the decision to let Ukraine use the ATACMS missiles without any input from his Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, which is highly unusual.

Biden and weakening Russia

Previously, Austin admitted on April 25, 2022 that the point of the war is “to see Russia weakened,” and Zelensky told The Economist on March 27, 2022, that “there are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.” As Leonid Ragozin wrote in May 2024:

The West has crossed many red lines and is willing to try even more, but it is impossible to predict how the close-knit group of criminally inclined individuals which rules Russia will act if their country begins losing. It has always been a tough proposition to play chess with a guy who is holding a hand grenade. And it makes no sense, as Biden’s predecessors knew very well during the Cold War.

Biden initiated direct but “lower level” hostilities with Russia on November 19, and Biden ally, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, followed suit with similar hostile bombardments of Russia on November 20, partially fulfilling the goal of British and American war hawks attempting to push Russia into larger hostilities under Biden’s lead, or that of his “handlers,” to turn the second cold war with Russia – the aspirations of Washington and London’s armchair generals – into a conflict more likely in their minds of bringing Putin into a more contentious and uncontrollable situation that would relieve Putin of power.

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.

conflict

Trump’s election victory shows the American people want peace in Ukraine

Published on December 17, 2024

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Bob Marshall

Americans resolutely rejected Kamala Harris’s war policies, electing Donald Trump on a platform of de-escalation. Joe Biden’s late delegation of missile control to President Zelensky and $24 billion funding serves only to deepen global conflict and risk elevation to WWIII

On November 5, 2024, American voters rendered their verdicts on several important questions where Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had polar opposite policies. The Russia-Ukraine war was one of them.

In September, Trump said, “I want the war to stop. I want to save lives that are being uselessly killed by the millions…. It’s so much worse than the numbers that you’re getting.”
Harris, after having opposed a peace agreement worked out between Ukraine and Russia in 2022, said in late September, “I will work to ensure Ukraine prevails in this war.”
Harris, who reminded us constantly that “democracy [was] on the ballot” here in the United States, seemed to care not a bit that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had canceled Ukraine’s elections, perhaps in a bid to avoid his own voters. Further, in a Gallup poll of Ukraine, conducted in August and October 2024, “an average of 52% of Ukrainians would like to see their country negotiate an end to the war as soon as possible. Nearly four in 10 Ukrainians (38%) believe their country should keep fighting until victory.”

When many millions of Americans and Ukrainians clearly want peace, and neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris can define “victory,” what are we to make of Joe Biden’s two, giant, post-election steps toward expanding the war into Russia proper and central Europe?

Step 1) Initiating unprecedented direct missile strikes on Russia: Biden took the first step on November 17, 2024, when he (or his handlers) delegated his authority over targeting U.S. ATACMS long-range missile batteries in Ukraine to Volodymyr Zelensky. Not only did Biden authorize Zelensky to select targets inside the Russian Federation, he also authorized Zelensky to have virtual command and control through U.S. military and civilian personnel who are the only military forces capable of firing these missiles and using NATO/U.S. satellites to guide them to the Russian and North Korean facilities, soldiers, and civilians Zelensky wanted destroyed or killed!

Step 2) Asking Congress to write Biden another Ukraine war check: President Biden wants a Supplemental Appropriations of $24 billion for Ukraine before he leaves office on January 20, 2025. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) wisely refused to permit a lame-duck Congress to authorize Biden and Zelensky to continue the war into 2025 in an effort to box in or block Trump from ending it, because until noon on January 20, 2025, when Donald Trump takes office, he has no formal veto powers – all Trump has is the moral authority to call the nation to its senses.

With most of official Washington focused on the transition, the president-elect’s appointments, and the drama of confirmation battles in the Senate, now is a good time to reflect on some basic truths about the defense of our homeland against invasions and attacks by enemies, both foreign and domestic.

For good or for ill, significant portions of this struggle over whether officially Washington and London want a “hot” war with Russia will be played out in the congressional budget process during the deliberations of any future appropriations bills, made all the dicier because of the micrometer-slim Republican majority in the House, where, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7, Clause 1).

And remember, Republican and Democratic House and Senate war hawks, as well as their civilian supporters, campaign donors, weapons’ manufacturers providing local jobs in 70-plus U.S. cities, leftist media harpies, and the legions of “Never Trumpers” have not disappeared. So, concern over Ukraine war funding still applies to any future appropriations for Ukraine after January 20, 2025.

On November 19, following Biden’s delegation of authority to Zelensky to command U.S. troops to target Russian territory, “President Vladimir Putin … formally lowered the threshold for Russia’s use of its nuclear weapons … [that] allows for a potential nuclear response by Moscow even to a conventional attack on Russia by any nation that is supported by a nuclear power.”
On November 29, Hungarian Defense Minister Kristof Szalay-Bobrovniczky stated, “Until the inauguration of the U.S. president on January 20, we will go through the most dangerous period in the Russia-Ukraine war that has been going on for nearly three years now.” Hungary is a NATO member.

In electing Trump, Americans also voted resoundingly for aggressive defense of the homeland. They will not tolerate continued invasions and attacks on our people and infrastructure by foreign nationals, organized criminal gangs, border jumpers, and terrorists. Russians and Ukrainians have the same rights to self-defense and self-determination. We know exactly what Americans would think if our homeland, territories, or military installations were threatened or attacked by Russia’s or any other hostile power’s missiles based in Cuba, Mexico, or overseas. We would either respond in kind or at least seriously and convincingly warn of equal repercussions.

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!

And, right on cue to prove his point, some current NATO advisors are urging that President Biden give the Zelensky administration nuclear weapons. Several NATO officials “suggested that Mr. Biden could return nuclear weapons to Ukraine that were taken from it after the fall of the Soviet Union. That would be an instant and enormous deterrent. But such a step would be complicated and have serious implications.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov responded, “These are absolutely irresponsible arguments of people who have a poor understanding of reality and who do not feel a shred of responsibility when making such statements. We also note that all of these statements are anonymous.”

This article is reprinted with permission from the Family Research Council, publishers of The Washington Stand at washingtonstand.com.