The Battle of Dhat Al-Bayajer – Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al-Tayer
Dr. Abdullah bin Musa Al Tayer
Israel and Hezbollah are close enemies. Each of them is necessary for the other’s survival and empowerment, and each party arouses the other’s resolve, pushing it to mobilize and prepare more, and to invent means of deterrence and attack to surprise the other party. So be it, and with Al-Shami they will “line up.” I am regurgitating the above as I comment on the Battle of the Bayajers, and the wireless communication devices that killed and wounded thousands at sea last week.
It is a strange and strange coincidence that that week witnessed many events that fractured the relationship between portable and remotely operated communication technologies and users. The Chechen president, who installed a machine gun on top of his gift car from Tesla factories, accused Elon Musk of disrupting the use of the vehicle remotely. First, he blocked all channels of the Russia Today network on the X platform, and then there were remote pager bombings.
It has become the norm that we do not discuss what is familiar, nor do we doubt what we are accustomed to living with, because it becomes part of our moment-to-moment life. Everything that was said about the mobile phone spying on us, that it is a threat to our health, and that it collects our personal and private information and exchanges it with advertisers, did not convince us to return it. Thinking about normalizing our lives with it, we humans stand in queues in the dusk of the night, waiting for daylight to compete to buy new copies of this device that we carry with us, just as we carry our names, and our shadows follow us. But what if a hostile and capable country decided to booby-trap and detonate it remotely, in our hands, under our pillows, or under our belts and in our pockets? This question may not have been asked before 3:30 p.m. Southern Suburbs time on Tuesday, September 17, 2024 AD.
In the same way, users’ confidence in social media platforms has reached a point where their sustainability cannot be questioned, as if their decision was in our hands, which encouraged us to persist in planning our policies, taking advantage of the power of their reach and the speed of their influence. We promoted our victories on them, created our mental image, as we wanted and wished, and created enemies. We bombarded their foreheads with them, used them as outlets to communicate with public opinion, harnessed them to serve our interests, and neglected other means, and because our memory is short, and we quickly drown in the crowd of euphoria, we forgot that those platforms banned the president of the largest and greatest country in the world, the former president of America, Donald Trump. He was banned while he was in his last days in the White House, and he found himself overnight as if he had never had an influence before, which prompted him to establish his own platform to ensure that its decision was in his hands. Today, social media networks punish Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and anyone who opposes the West’s agenda or threatens peace and security, as the liberal-democratic system defines them. Not only that, but the West does not accept the spread of a globally influential platform that it cannot control. An example of this is Tik Tok and Telegram, which are facing serious problems in America, France, and elsewhere.
The Battle of Dhat al-Bayajr went beyond the measures of peaceful punishment through prohibition, prohibition, and intransigence, to booby-trapping wireless means of communication. This is just an example of what could happen to mobile phones, computers, televisions, airplanes, and all technologies that can be controlled remotely. In an instant, they can turn into bombs that kill people randomly, without leaving a trace to trace the criminal.
Is it the end of globalization, by undermining the trust that has been built over decades in technology, which has connected man with his fellow man across the globe? Or is this the beginning of baring its fangs to maintain superiority in the global system? Are we entering a stage of tampering with international security, stability and peace in order to achieve narrow-minded political interests?
Regardless of the answers to the previous questions, we are faced with the escalation of fear and uncertainty. The invasion of the pagers has created a sense of anxiety about the use of daily technology, which will affect the feeling of security. The use of civilian devices as weapons erases the lines between civilian and military targets, that is, between the feeling of security and the feeling of fear.
The world stands on the threshold of new fronts in war and conflict, as adversaries race to weaponize the technology used in daily life with every neighborhood, which indicates the coming attacks that are more destructive and unpredictable, targeting vital infrastructure and non-combatants.
I do not think that an international system that was unable to save the civilians in Gaza is capable of shouldering its responsibilities to stop playing with assumptions and restore the shameful human feelings that have suddenly fallen into a state of uncertainty and skepticism regarding everything they are accustomed to dealing with daily and momentarily. Fear of armed technology could stifle innovation and hinder the development of new technologies that rely on communication and communication. This is a worrying development that could have serious consequences for global security and individual freedoms alike, as rapid processing may affect the privacy of innocent people and restrict their freedoms and movement.
