Israeli-founded app preloaded on Samsung phones is attracting controversy

Post by baked_beanz » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:35 PM UTC

galagawinkle489 wrote: post #173

ebbi wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you increasingly lose the court of public opinion, you resort to this sort of gaslighting. Because the Israeli Hasbara is now failing at this gaslighting strategy, you're leveling ad hominems towards people who see this as what it is - decades of war crimes and a humanitarian crisis. So either come up with a proper argument, or stay quiet. Gaslighting us into thinking we're being biased, or that we're ill inform…

The war crime is when Hamas and Hezbollah fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel to kill innocent civilians. Any and all means are and will always be justified to prevent that.

Post by HappyPanacea » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:37 PM UTC

MomsAVoxell wrote: post #159

Un1corn wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which _Israeli_ companies were used for Stuxnet or the 2024 pager attack? NSO is not the same as the company from the article since it's explicitly a cyber company.

The more relevant question is, which Israeli companies are currently not involved in covert military operations? The difficulty in comprehending an answer to this question is precisely why allowing ones military to perform such actions using covert means is so dangerous for a civilian population to support. War is supposed to be fought in the open in order to protect the civilians. I suppose when the distinction betw…

Post by amarcheschi » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

baklavaEmperor wrote: post #126

What’s striking is how often these ‘small’ surveillance tech stories trace back to the same state-aligned ecosystem. When Israel does it, it’s treated as a complex security issue. When another ‘bad’ country does the same thing, we immediately call it espionage. And almost on cue, the discussion drifts anywhere except the uncomfortable fact that it’s the same ecosystem from the same country showing up again.

Post by MomsAVoxell » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:38 PM UTC

jameshilliard wrote: post #197

MomsAVoxell wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally a violation of Common Article 3; GC I Art. 12 & 18; GC III Art. 13; GC IV Arts. 27, 32 & 51; AP I Arts. 48, 51(2–5), 57 & 54; CCW Amended Protocol II Art. 7(2) of the Geneva Conventions. Common Article 3 was breached by carrying out lethal attacks against persons taking no active part in hostilities (including off-duty medics and civilians) without individual assessment; GC I Articles 12 and 18 were violate…

You're really playing up the false narrative that the spicy pagers were indiscriminate, which just isn't factually accurate, they were sold exclusively to terrorists and used exclusively by terrorist organizations for communications, there weren't any non-terrorist affiliated medics that got caught up in the attack from my understanding. Even in cases where they were detonated in populated areas bystanders were essen…

Post by monocasa » Mon, Nov 17, 2025, 9:39 PM UTC

dralley wrote: post #125

monocasa wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pagers killed a total of twelve people; which included four children. That's a pretty awful ratio.

The pager detonations were weak enough to be effectively nonlethal unless you're especially vulnerable. That's how you end up with such a low death to injury ratio in the first place. So per the KPI metric you've chosen, making it more lethal and more dangerous to bystanders would have been better.