Ryan Girdusky clashed with British-American journalist Mehdi Hasan on Monday night.
CNN has banned a conservative commentator from appearing on the network again after he told a Muslim journalist “I hope your beeper doesn’t go off,” an apparent reference to the spate of exploding pagers in Lebanon that killed members of the Hezbollah militant group last month.
Ryan Girdusky made the comment during a heated debate with Mehdi Hasan, a prominent British-American broadcaster and an outspoken critic of Israel’s war in Gaza, on “CNN Newsnight” with host Abby Phillip.
The guests were discussing the racist jokes made by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe, which overshadowed former President Donald Trump’s rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Sunday and continue to make headlines two days later.
As the debate turned fractious, Girdusky and Hasan sparred over whether the latter had been labeled an anti-Semite. “I’m a supporter of the Palestinians, I’m used to it,” Hasan said.
Girdusky replied: “Well I hope your beeper doesn’t go off.”
I’m still flabbergasted that there hasn’t been more of an international outrage concerning those pagers.
The use of mines as an indiscriminate weapon are already frowned upon,
And here they are using them, scattered throughout a civilian population with absolutely no regard to who could be standing next to their target.
Un-fucking believable.
well we know who could be standing next to their target- another brown person in a majority muslim country. IE, nobody western supremacist racist pigs give a fuck about which is why there was no punishment and there will be no punishment against israel for any single thing they do. if it were gonna happen it would have by now. it’s not as tho once they get to that 300,000th dead palestinian suddenly the “rules based order” is gonna enact some of those “consequences for breaking the rules” on israel. not gonna happen. someone needs to dylan crooks netanyahu.
It was a terrorist attack. We must condemn all terrorist attacks
At this point it’d probably be less work to praise them when (if?) they don’t commit any…
Every day Israel doesn’t commit an atrocity, they get a cookie.
Fortunately, I like cookies, cause it looks like I’m going to be hanging onto them for a while.
They bombed dozens of hospitals and orphanages across two countries and also started a starvation siege since that time.
There is no outrage left
This really hit me. As in maybe it explains some things since the internet was created. It’s indeed so hard to keep up.
I know it’s different, but that reminds me of the Gish gallop.
There hasn’t been outrage because blowing up people with pagers is actually the most targeted thing Israel has done in the past year. Certainly a step up from killing hundreds of refugees to maybe take out one hamas guy.
They killed children in that pager attack. Which I guess is part for the course, so ya, nevermind, you might be right.
Accused hamas guy
Not mines, IEDs. It was an indiscriminate terrorist attack on a civilian population using improvised explosive devices.
Indiscriminate it was not. It was hyper targeted at everyone in the command chain that got a beeper. It’s not as if they sold them through normal stores to the general population.
They literally set off bombs in grocery stores and doctors offices. They killed a kid.
Right, because pagers blowing up in public is not indiscriminate.
You’re describing what the Palestinians did to Israel on 10/7, and have continued doing this entire time, when they launch rockets at Israeli population centers.
That’s also bad. Both of the sides are bad, and the Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire.
I didn’t realize that HAMAS was as large an organization as the Israeli government and armed forces.
We’re also talking about a completely different country from Palestine that had nothing to do with any part of any of these conflicts, and even then, an indiscriminate terrorist attack on Palestinian civilians wouldn’t be justified by HAMAS’s terrorism. That’s like saying that the US bombings on Iraqi civilians are justified by Al Qaeda’s attack on the WTC on 9/11.
Why does one side have population centers and the other human shields? It’s wrong regardless.
Say what you want about Americans, we have yet to respond to a terror attack with fucking genocide.
Not improvised, and not on the civilian population, but you’re correct about the rest lol
Not on the civilian population, other than pagers blowing up in public?
There has been minimal pushback to the Israeli apartheid regime and decades long genocide in Palestine. You think a few more deaths are going to inspire real international action?
What’s even crazier for me to wrap my head around is those pagers were a safer method for civilians than what they’ve been doing. They’re indiscriminately leveling city blocks killing thousands of innocents.
Yeah no, the exploding pagers and radios, which were from an intercepted supply specifically for Hezbollah, was far more targeted than anyone could reasonably ask for.
Like yes, Israel’s overall actions in Gaza and Lebanon have been horribly ruthless and against civilian well-being. And there is the broader context of Palestine. But this is what you’re outraged by?
If everything between bombing Hezbollah and targeted attacks like the pagers/radio are off the table, like what would you actually do if a non-governmental military was indiscriminately firing hundreds of rockets into your cities for an entire year? Seriously, how would you actually respond if you were in the leadership position?
No dude, it’s pretty reasonable for me to ask that they don’t kill children with IEDs.
Serious question, would you condone assassinating Putin with an IED even if several children were killed? Would it be better if they used a missile strike with 5x the civilian casualties because at least it isn’t an IED? Would it be better to do nothing and allow an opposing military force to continue bombarding your cities and your children with rockets and missiles?
I abhore the mass bombings and utter destruction Israel has wrought over the last year. It is beyond the pale. I would genuinely have prefered it if they could’ve taken out all of Hamas by blowing up cell phones in their pockets instead.
There’s no risk of Putin being at a random grocery store or hospital so your hypothetical doesn’t tea make sense.
That doesn’t answer the question. Let me rephrase to be more direct.
What do you believe makes for acceptable and unacceptable civilian casualties (e.g. children) in urban warfare and what principles do you draw on to form these beliefs? Please use an example from a side you feel are “the good guys”.
If you’re a pacifist or believe not a single civilian casualty is acceptable, what would your approach be to resolving a conflict where your civilian population is being attacked with rockets/missiles?
According to international law it’s acceptable when you’re being occupied, as is the case with Palestine. Not saying I agree, but the law makes a big distinction for those under apartheid.
I mean it was wrong when the US bombed weddings in the middle east and was a bad look. Don’t even need hypotheticals.
Pretty clear from the footage and lack of civilian casualties that the collateral risk was very low though