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.”

  • ShadowRam@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    246
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    16 hours ago

    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.

    • godlessworm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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…

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          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.

    • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      63
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      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.

    • leftytighty@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      121
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      They bombed dozens of hospitals and orphanages across two countries and also started a starvation siege since that time.

      There is no outrage left

      • skittle07crusher@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

        • irreticent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 hour ago

          It’s indeed so hard to keep up.

          I know it’s different, but that reminds me of the Gish gallop.

          “The Gish gallop is a rhetorical technique in which a person in a debate attempts to overwhelm an opponent by presenting an excessive number of arguments, with no regard for their accuracy or strength, with a rapidity that makes it impossible for the opponent to address them in the time available.”

      • spyd3r@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 hours ago

        indiscriminate terrorist attack on a civilian population

        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.

        • EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          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.

        • Soulg@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 hours ago

          That’s also bad. Both of the sides are bad, and the Palestinian civilians are caught in the crossfire.

        • zbyte64@awful.systems
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 hours ago

          population centers

          Why does one side have population centers and the other human shields? It’s wrong regardless.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.

      • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Not improvised, and not on the civilian population, but you’re correct about the rest lol

    • 01011@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      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?

    • OmegaMan@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

    • Soleos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      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?

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        No dude, it’s pretty reasonable for me to ask that they don’t kill children with IEDs.

        • Soleos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          7 hours ago

          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.

          • zbyte64@awful.systems
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 hours ago

            I mean it was wrong when the US bombed weddings in the middle east and was a bad look. Don’t even need hypotheticals.

          • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            There’s no risk of Putin being at a random grocery store or hospital so your hypothetical doesn’t tea make sense.

            • Soleos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 hours ago

              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?

              • zbyte64@awful.systems
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                5 hours ago

                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.

      • JackbyDev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Idk dude, generally things like booby traps are considered illegal in part because they’re not selective. Like if someone breaks in and you kill them with a gun it’s self defense, but if it’s a booby trap then we view it differently. Disguising bombs as typical civilian items seems pretty messed up.

        • Soleos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          8 hours ago

          Did you forget that every “responsible” western power(Edit: Ottawa treaty) the US and Ukraine (who was a signatory of the Ottawa treaty) also has an arsenal of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines which are specifically meant to be hidden and disguised? Quite literally booby traps with long-lasting risks for civilian lives. Many children have lost their lives due to mines, yet they are still deemed acceptable in war.

          Anything that risks civilian lives is pretty messed up. But even compared to the mines being used in Ukraine, the pagers/radios were far more targeted and posed less risk to civilians.

            • Soleos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Oh snap, that’s awesome! I wasn’t aware of this. I assumed NATO would be consistent with the US on mines. Thank you for sharing this.

              I’ll modify my argument to “Even the US and Ukraine use mines”

              It’s interesting though, according to my research the distinction between mines and weapons lie in how it’s activated. For example, the C19 ex-Claymore is now remote detonation only to comply with the Ottawa treaty because it can only be activated remotely and cannot be used with an indiscriminate activator like a tripwire. Therefore it is a weapon. With this les, the pagers/radios are more akin to weapons rather than mines.

              So booby traps are allowed, as long as someone is there to decide when to press the button, which the Israelies clearly did.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 hours ago

            The use of mines as an indiscriminate weapon are already frowned upon,

            Did you forget that every “responsible” western power also has an arsenal of anti-personnel and anti-vehicle mines which are specifically meant to be hidden and disguised?

            No, I didn’t forget. Someone even mentioned them in this same comment chain.

            • Soleos@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              7 hours ago

              Okay, so let’s go with your position that attacking soldiers with explosive weapons in civilian areas are not justifiable.

              Based on your beliefs, what do you see as a justifiable response to Hezbollah’s year long barrage of rockets and missiles into Israeli cities. Keep in mind Hezbollah by and large conducts these strikes directly embedded in or right beside civilian sites. And they also store weapons in civilian sites.

              The goal now is not to say which is worse, there’s plenty of blame to go around. The goal is to understand how you think about conflict and the principles you believe in that shape your views.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                6 hours ago

                let’s go with your position

                This was never a debate, I was just saying that I feel like disguising bombs as everyday, civilian objects is bad. The comment where I even posted that I literally began with “idk dude” to make it clear I wasn’t trying to engage in debate about this topic. The only reason I even replied again was because land mines were mentioned in the context of “did you forget” when literally above in this comment chain land mines were already mentioned.

    • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 hours ago

      Pretty clear from the footage and lack of civilian casualties that the collateral risk was very low though