6 ms·

If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's internal communication then it would be justified, no?

by hersko 2y ago

aaomidi 2y ago
If you make it acceptable to have these style of attacks, then they’re going to be replicated against your own government and people.
- nickff 2y ago
  Hezbollah is already willing to shoot rockets at civilian targets; an attack like this is much more carefully-targeted than their average strike.
- tptacek 2y ago
  I think the ship has sailed on how far attacks will escalate in this region.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  Hezbollah would nuke Israel if they could. You think they're above pager bombs? They just cant execute
pcl 2y ago
Let’s assume you accurately determine which thousand pagers are going to which people, and that you accurately determine which thousand are Evil Hezbollah Members and definitely not someone’s cousin or whatever. Regardless of these (tenuous) assumptions, if you detonate a thousand small bombs, it seems fair to also assume that some of them might not be on the bodies of their intended targets, but rather outside on the counter by the shower or over by the car keys or something. So no, I’d say this is a pretty tough sort of operation to justify.
- xenospn 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - lm28469 2y ago
    That's a lot of assumptions you probably have no sources to back up
    - xenospn 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - meepmorp 2y ago
    People routinely leave guns in Walmart bathrooms. Leaving the top secret hezbollahpager on the counter is eminently believable.
    - simoncion 2y ago
      The pager isn't top secret. Pagers employ unencrypted communications and (because they are receive-only devices) use a broadcast system to deliver messages to the pager. [0] Israel is publicly very, very friendly with at least one very wealthy Five Eyes country, and may have less-public support from many other wealthy and technologically sophisticated countries. If Israel happened to not have the domestically-developed capability to get a copy of every single page sent in an area of interest, they could ask their good buddies at the NSA, CIA, or other such global intelligence agencies to shunt that information to them in a timely manner. Given the organization's sophistication, there is absolutely no way that Hezbollah believes that the contents of their pages are secret. The worst-case outcome of a lost pager is that the organization temporarily loses convenient contact to the person at the other end of that pager. While this could potentially be operationally disastrous, it's more like losing your service weapon than it is leaving the plans for D-Day on a public bus. [0] <https://computer.rip/2020-12-15-weird-wireless.html https://computer.rip/2020-12-15-weird-wireless.html>
    - xenospn 2y ago
      These are not some random rednecks at a west Virginia Walmart. They're professional soldiers of a military organizations handling a secure communications device. Not sure if you've ever been in the military, but when I was there, if I had left a secure device or my gun somewhere out of sight/reach and someone else got to it, I'd get in a ton of trouble and probably go to prison.
- CydeWeys 2y ago
  It's war. Much worse things have been happening in this war already (e.g. Hezbollah explicitly targeting Israeli residential areas and killing civilians). By contrast this action seems much more targeted and justifiable. If your bar for taking action is "there can't even be a chance of hurting a civilian", then your army can't do anything, and your entire civilian populace is slaughtered when it's taken over by the enemy intent on destroying your country.
lm28469 2y ago
> it would be justified, no? It's never justified to trigger explosives when you have no idea where said explosives are. What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ? What if he's picking up his kids from school, visiting the local food market, &c. What if he's driving and end up crashing in a bunch of people walking on the sidewalk
- xdennis 2y ago
  That sounds nice, but by that logic no bomb would ever be fired. Under international law collateral damage must not be excessive, but it is permitted. If it was unacceptable, evil armies would do what they want and good armies would never fire a shot.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    When you drop a bomb you at least know where it's going, here you have no idea. Look at what's going on in Ukraine, if you can't tell a good from a bad shit you have to get your eyes checked. Hitting a column of tank isn't the same as targeting a civilian building Wars are always bad and there will always be war crimes on all sides, it doesn't mean that everything is equal
    - daedrdev 2y ago
      In WW2 20% of US bombs fell within 1000 feet of their target, which were often in densely populated areas. Its only modern technology that lets us know where its really going
      - lm28469 2y ago
        > In WW2 20% of US bombs fell within 1000 feet of their target, which were often in densely populated areas. Its only modern technology that lets us know where its really going Is this supposed to be a gotcha ? WW2 is the reason we updated the Geneva conventions to protect civilians lol
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
yread 2y ago
Would it be moral to make people who work in israeli army explode even when not in uniform?
- tptacek 2y ago
  That's a weird question. It's war. There's no morality involved. But if your question is "is it within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform", then the answer is emphatically "yes".
  - mandmandam 2y ago
    > It's war. There's no morality involved. There's a little. That's why countries make agreements such as the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, etc. There are (meant to be) strict consequences for breaking these rules. (I noticed you change your wording from 'rules' to 'morality' - still wrong.) Breaking these rules is why we have the concept of 'war crimes'. The word 'war' also implies two armies battling, rather than an invasion following occupation. In any case, the Geneva Conventions apply in all armed conflicts. Since the Geneva convention still exists*, no, it is not "within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform". See Protocol I. Targeting off-duty or non-uniformed service members violates both international law and the core moral principles of warfare, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements. Denying this isn't just factually wrong, it's deeply immoral. * Along with the Principle of Distinction, Proportionality, Non-Combatant Immunity and Civilian Impact, etc.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      This is likely to settle out as one of the most surgical non-infantry attacks in the history of modern warfare, and because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague. Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
      - 2y ago
diggan 2y ago
If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's military wing then yeah, kind of justified. But Hezbollah is bigger than that, and seems this attack targeted the whole organization, not just the one that is commonly designed a terrorist organization. I guess for an American comparison it's a bit like attacking all republicans for the actions of the Proud Boys or any other militia.
- loeg 2y ago
  The Republican party is not literally at war with Israel. Hezbollah is.
  - diggan 2y ago
    I think you might want to open a newspaper, Israel was at war with Lebanon back in 2006. 2024's war is with Palestine/Hamas.
    - loeg 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl... No one serious disputes that Hezbollah opened a new conflict with Israel in 2023. This is occurring simultaneously with the Hamas-initiated conflict.

If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's internal communication then it would be justified, no?

by hersko 2y ago

If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's internal communication then it would be justified, no?

If you make it acceptable to have these style of attacks, then they’re going to be replicated against your own government and people.

nickff 2y ago
Hezbollah is already willing to shoot rockets at civilian targets; an attack like this is much more carefully-targeted than their average strike.
tptacek 2y ago
I think the ship has sailed on how far attacks will escalate in this region.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
Hezbollah would nuke Israel if they could. You think they're above pager bombs? They just cant execute

pcl 2y ago

Let’s assume you accurately determine which thousand pagers are going to which people, and that you accurately determine which thousand are Evil Hezbollah Members and definitely not someone’s cousin or whatever. Regardless of these (tenuous) assumptions, if you detonate a thousand small bombs, it seems fair to also assume that some of them might not be on the bodies of their intended targets, but rather outside on the counter by the shower or over by the car keys or something. So no, I’d say this is a pretty tough sort of operation to justify.

xenospn 2y ago
[flagged]
- lm28469 2y ago
  That's a lot of assumptions you probably have no sources to back up
  - xenospn 2y ago
    [flagged]
- meepmorp 2y ago
  People routinely leave guns in Walmart bathrooms. Leaving the top secret hezbollahpager on the counter is eminently believable.
  - simoncion 2y ago
    The pager isn't top secret. Pagers employ unencrypted communications and (because they are receive-only devices) use a broadcast system to deliver messages to the pager. [0] Israel is publicly very, very friendly with at least one very wealthy Five Eyes country, and may have less-public support from many other wealthy and technologically sophisticated countries. If Israel happened to not have the domestically-developed capability to get a copy of every single page sent in an area of interest, they could ask their good buddies at the NSA, CIA, or other such global intelligence agencies to shunt that information to them in a timely manner. Given the organization's sophistication, there is absolutely no way that Hezbollah believes that the contents of their pages are secret. The worst-case outcome of a lost pager is that the organization temporarily loses convenient contact to the person at the other end of that pager. While this could potentially be operationally disastrous, it's more like losing your service weapon than it is leaving the plans for D-Day on a public bus. [0] <https://computer.rip/2020-12-15-weird-wireless.html https://computer.rip/2020-12-15-weird-wireless.html>
  - xenospn 2y ago
    These are not some random rednecks at a west Virginia Walmart. They're professional soldiers of a military organizations handling a secure communications device. Not sure if you've ever been in the military, but when I was there, if I had left a secure device or my gun somewhere out of sight/reach and someone else got to it, I'd get in a ton of trouble and probably go to prison.
CydeWeys 2y ago
It's war. Much worse things have been happening in this war already (e.g. Hezbollah explicitly targeting Israeli residential areas and killing civilians). By contrast this action seems much more targeted and justifiable. If your bar for taking action is "there can't even be a chance of hurting a civilian", then your army can't do anything, and your entire civilian populace is slaughtered when it's taken over by the enemy intent on destroying your country.

lm28469 2y ago

> it would be justified, no? It's never justified to trigger explosives when you have no idea where said explosives are. What if the dude if hugging is kid/wife/mom ? What if he's picking up his kids from school, visiting the local food market, &c. What if he's driving and end up crashing in a bunch of people walking on the sidewalk

xdennis 2y ago
That sounds nice, but by that logic no bomb would ever be fired. Under international law collateral damage must not be excessive, but it is permitted. If it was unacceptable, evil armies would do what they want and good armies would never fire a shot.
- lm28469 2y ago
  When you drop a bomb you at least know where it's going, here you have no idea. Look at what's going on in Ukraine, if you can't tell a good from a bad shit you have to get your eyes checked. Hitting a column of tank isn't the same as targeting a civilian building Wars are always bad and there will always be war crimes on all sides, it doesn't mean that everything is equal
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    In WW2 20% of US bombs fell within 1000 feet of their target, which were often in densely populated areas. Its only modern technology that lets us know where its really going
    - lm28469 2y ago
      > In WW2 20% of US bombs fell within 1000 feet of their target, which were often in densely populated areas. Its only modern technology that lets us know where its really going Is this supposed to be a gotcha ? WW2 is the reason we updated the Geneva conventions to protect civilians lol
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

yread 2y ago

Would it be moral to make people who work in israeli army explode even when not in uniform?

tptacek 2y ago
That's a weird question. It's war. There's no morality involved. But if your question is "is it within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform", then the answer is emphatically "yes".
- mandmandam 2y ago
  > It's war. There's no morality involved. There's a little. That's why countries make agreements such as the Genocide Convention, Geneva Conventions, etc. There are (meant to be) strict consequences for breaking these rules. (I noticed you change your wording from 'rules' to 'morality' - still wrong.) Breaking these rules is why we have the concept of 'war crimes'. The word 'war' also implies two armies battling, rather than an invasion following occupation. In any case, the Geneva Conventions apply in all armed conflicts. Since the Geneva convention still exists*, no, it is not "within the norms of war to strike service members when they're not in uniform". See Protocol I. Targeting off-duty or non-uniformed service members violates both international law and the core moral principles of warfare, as outlined by the Geneva Conventions and other international agreements. Denying this isn't just factually wrong, it's deeply immoral. * Along with the Principle of Distinction, Proportionality, Non-Combatant Immunity and Civilian Impact, etc.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    This is likely to settle out as one of the most surgical non-infantry attacks in the history of modern warfare, and because Israel is involved, 20% of the commentary is about how the people who set it in motion belong in the Hague. Think about what that says to people weighing the (correct!) claims that Israel has committed widespread war crimes in its occupation of Gaza.
    - 2y ago

diggan 2y ago

If it was targeting pagers used for Hezbollah's military wing then yeah, kind of justified. But Hezbollah is bigger than that, and seems this attack targeted the whole organization, not just the one that is commonly designed a terrorist organization. I guess for an American comparison it's a bit like attacking all republicans for the actions of the Proud Boys or any other militia.

loeg 2y ago
The Republican party is not literally at war with Israel. Hezbollah is.
- diggan 2y ago
  I think you might want to open a newspaper, Israel was at war with Lebanon back in 2006. 2024's war is with Palestine/Hamas.
  - loeg 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_conflict_(2023%E2%80%93present) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93Hezbollah_confl... No one serious disputes that Hezbollah opened a new conflict with Israel in 2023. This is occurring simultaneously with the Hamas-initiated conflict.