7 ms·

> You have to hand it to them -- it's a clever strategy with minimal casualties outside of your enemy I agree it’s clever, but there are reports now of thousan

> You have to hand it to them -- it's a clever strategy with minimal casualties outside of your enemy I agree it’s clever, but there are reports now of thousands wounded. Feels like a lot of collateral risk, if these people who were targeted were out and about (grocery shopping, bank, etc.)

ignoramous 2y ago
Looks like Lebanese civilians have indeed been injured/maimed; but it appears cool to some since it is an "impressive supply-chain hack", so let's leave it at that and not call it terrorism.
- csmpltn 2y ago
  You could've labeled it terrorism had Lebanon and Israel weren't at war with each other over the past 12 months, and had the people carrying those devices were random uninvolved civilians. If you were to consider the fact that Hezbollah has been shelling Israeli cities and civilians on a daily basis for the past 12 months (killing many, also children, and driving hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes), with the UN peacekeeping force failing to keep Hezbollah north of the Litani river - then perhaps you would understand that this is likely as close as you can get to a "precision strike" on an enemy you're at war with. This may in-fact be the most precise military strike on an enemy paramilitary group in the history of modern warfare. You either have a very unrealistic idea of what a war actually looks like (0% civilians casualties or injuries), or an agenda.
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    Let's just say, I don't believe war is a cover for terrorism against any peoples, be it in the West or East, Arab or Caucasian.
    - csmpltn 2y ago
      Fair enough, and thanks for being open about this. With this in mind, all I can say is that your original comment is based on 100% emotion and 0% analysis and rationality.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        [flagged]
        csmpltn 2y ago
        I certainly agree that war, as experienced by humans on all sides of a conflict, is a form of terror. That's a simple emotional argument that everybody can relate to. It doesn't touch on the realities of war, especially a war that was forced on one side by another (which is the case here, with Hezbollah willingly deciding to shell and bomb Israel on a daily basis for the past 12 months, despite Israel not waging any war on Lebanon). What are you so fascinated with here, exactly?
        mistermann 2y ago
        This: > 100% emotion and 0% analysis I love the irony of it.
        ignoramous 2y ago
        Unsure why that comment was flagged. smh
        mistermann 2y ago
        Western culture and epistemology have a tumultuous relationship here in the early 21st century.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      Do you think that any military action with civilian impact constitutes terrorism? no war has ever been waged without collateral damage.
      - knodi123 2y ago
        war waged without collateral damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
        ineedasername 2y ago
        At least one innocent farmer just trying to safeguard their farm might have suffered contusions and destruction of property! "Farmers attempted to herd the emus using trucks, but this proved ineffective; one truck even crashed after hitting an emu" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Emu-War https://www.britannica.com/topic/Emu-War
  - shihab 2y ago
    do you realize that nurses in hospital, civil servants workers are among people carrying this device? That not all, not even majority of Hizbollah personnel have no military responsibility whatsoever?
    - csmpltn 2y ago
      There's absolutely no reason for uninvolved, random and peaceful civilians to be carrying a classified wartime-ready pager issued by a paramilitary terrorist organization. If you were carrying the device you're either Hezbollah, or cooperating with them - which makes you a legitimate military target. Israel has given Lebanon and Hezbollah enough ultimatums to stop the aggressions. This is what happens when diplomacy fails.
      - koolba 2y ago
        > If you were carrying the device you're either Hezbollah, or cooperating with them - which makes you a legitimate military target. Or you were standing in line next to a guy holding one while waiting to buy groceries. It’s clearly indiscriminate to the collateral damage.
        csmpltn 2y ago
        But we already have videos of people standing in very close proximity to the devices being detonated - and not getting hurt. In-fact, many of the people carrying the device in their pockets ended up not sustaining life-threatening injuries. I'm not saying civilians weren't hurt by this. But I'm also saying that no war has 0% civilian casualties. Those two countries are at war with each other.
        s1artibartfast 2y ago
        If they were truly indiscriminate and and indifferent to collateral damage, there are far easier and more effective ways to kill a few dozen people in Lebanon. The whole complex and contrived attack speaks of tying to minimize collateral damage.
        2y ago
  - jajko 2y ago
    Terrorism definition is independent of whether there is ongoing war or not, lets not divert the subject with simple whataboutism. We all know what happened, on both sides, including deaths of tens of thousands of civilians including thousands of palestinian children who did fuck nothing to anybody, just were born at bad place at bad time. What would be enough kill ratio israeli : palestinian civilian, or even better israeli civilian : palestinian kid/baby that would satiate Israeli government to stop the war? Very conservative estimates put deaths of direct US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to around 500k, meaning its 500:3 ratio and factual defeat of US army to withdraw and cut losses. So thats the threshold of civilized western world? Israel already surpassed that long time ago. They can't and won't win with Hamas and they know it, its exactly same situation as Taliban, ISIS etc. Regroup, strike back, stronger, smarter, better equipped, more motivated. Spiral of death can go on and on till there is nobody standing on neither side. If I had to choose where the next nuclear detonation happens it would be for me 50:50 Ukraine : Israel, and this is how you get there.
    - csmpltn 2y ago
      [flagged]
  - dnakqozkfnrjq 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - csmpltn 2y ago
      > It’s a mistake not to acknowledge civilian casualties, and not to feel sorrow and even anger. I agree with you 100%, it's important to acknowledge civilian casualties. Many uninvolved Lebanese people don't want a war with Israel, and they don't deserve any of this. I truly feel very sorry for those people and I wish they would never have had to go through this. But at the same time, we can't let emotions alone dictate everything. There's a murderous paramilitary death cult operating from within the Lebanese territory that uses Lebanon for all its territory and resources to kill as many Jewish people (and non-Jews, as demonstrated recently with the missile attack that killed 10 Druze children in a football game) as possible and erase Israel. They don't care about your feelings, or who their victims are. They'll gladly kidnap and murder civilians, children, elderly - as long as they are an Israeli. It's truly tragic, but there really aren't too many ways out of this.
      - bamboozled 2y ago
        [flagged]
  - captainkrtek 2y ago
    The unfortunate thing is that regardless of politics, this will be seen as further escalation that ratchets up the risk of greater regional conflict. All wars eventually end, its just a question of how long, and how much death (both militarily and civilian) will be endured by everyone in the region. I hope there are diplomatic possibilities to de-escalate, but it seems those windows are closing.
    - coding123 2y ago
      I don't know - it would seem that the wars there don't end, it's just continuous with intermittent slow downs.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    [flagged]
- ericmcer 2y ago
  Violence has been probably the biggest driver of innovation for us as a species. I would categorize thousands of weapons as "cool" viewed dispassionately. Aircraft carriers, Fighter Jets, Cruise missiles. They are all definitely cool when viewed from afar.
- barbs 2y ago
  Both things can be true
- ridiculous_leke 2y ago
  By that reasoning even Churchill is a terrorist.
  - cassepipe 2y ago
    Which they would probably agree to. Purists do not care for practical matters such arbitrating what would be the best course of action in order to have the less casualties because for them the only acceptable number of casualties is zero because any war and casualty is immoral. I have sympathy for this kind of reasoning because it's been mine for a long time. There is something important for the preservation of the self in refusing all kinds of wrong in the world. The problem is that by refusing to engage with the world, they can affect nothing (and probably accept that, everybody should just stop being immoral, that's easy in their mind)
  - Arubis 2y ago
    If you include his treatment of subjects of the British Raj, there’s plenty of folks that will agree with that labeling.
pdabbadabba 2y ago
I have no doubt that innocent civilians have been injured. But it's also worth noting that there are thousands of Hezbollah members, so the number alone doesn't necessarily tell us much about the number of civilians injured. (Similar to the casualty figures that come out of Gaza.) I hate the idea of any innocent civilian being injured. But it might also be instructive to consider the alternative: if Israel wanted to achieve similar results via a conventional war against Hezbollah, it seems virtually guaranteed that far more innocent people would have been injured and killed—not to mention the Israeli civilians on the other side, whose lives also matter.
- random_upvoter 2y ago
  > if Israel wanted to achieve similar results via a conventional war against Hezbollah, it seems virtually guaranteed that far more innocent people would have been injured and killed "It's OK that Israel causes excessive amounts of civilian casualties, because in the alternative scenario Israel would also cause excessive amounts of civilian casualties"
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - snapcaster 2y ago
      "Its war on terrorists" sure. by framing what's happening in that way you've already excused away most of the things people are upset about
      - pdabbadabba 2y ago
        I agree that the framing is tendentious (though not necessarily false). But I don't think much actually hinges on that. The point is still worth considering even if it's just a "war" rather than "war on terrorists." The linked article is a study on wars in general, not just wars "on terror."
      - 2y ago
fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago
I wonder if people are unaware that Hezbollah and Israel have been shooting rockets at each other for months. There are roughly 1000 deaths in the conflict and hundreds of thousands of civilians evacuated. If we’re talking about harms to civilians, this incident is probably small compared to the war overall.
raxxorraxor 2y ago
These are Hezbollah pagers and Hezbollah only exists to terrorize Israel and it is their sole purpose. Of course there is still a danger of collateral risk, but I don't think it can get much more targeted.
- sa-mao 2y ago
  "Hezbollah only exists to terrorise Israel and it is their sole purpose." This is a very curious take, what makes you think a group of hundreds of thousands of people, investing so much time, efforts and resources, exposing themselves and their loved ones to fatal risks just to terrorise Israel?
  - raxxorraxor 2y ago
    Eh, the history isn't a secret and the reason is that they are religious fundamentalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah > According to Hezbollah's Deputy-General, Naim Qassem, the struggle against Israel is a core belief of Hezbollah and the central rationale of Hezbollah's existence. I tend to believe their own statement on this matter. Where do you see wiggle room for another argument? Or even to find the argument "curious"? What is curious about it?
  - paulcole 2y ago
    Only on HN, “This is curious. Why would people do an irrational thing similar to the irrational things that people have done for the entirety of human existence?” A mystery indeed.

ignoramous 2y ago

Looks like Lebanese civilians have indeed been injured/maimed; but it appears cool to some since it is an "impressive supply-chain hack", so let's leave it at that and not call it terrorism.

csmpltn 2y ago
You could've labeled it terrorism had Lebanon and Israel weren't at war with each other over the past 12 months, and had the people carrying those devices were random uninvolved civilians. If you were to consider the fact that Hezbollah has been shelling Israeli cities and civilians on a daily basis for the past 12 months (killing many, also children, and driving hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes), with the UN peacekeeping force failing to keep Hezbollah north of the Litani river - then perhaps you would understand that this is likely as close as you can get to a "precision strike" on an enemy you're at war with. This may in-fact be the most precise military strike on an enemy paramilitary group in the history of modern warfare. You either have a very unrealistic idea of what a war actually looks like (0% civilians casualties or injuries), or an agenda.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  Let's just say, I don't believe war is a cover for terrorism against any peoples, be it in the West or East, Arab or Caucasian.
  - csmpltn 2y ago
    Fair enough, and thanks for being open about this. With this in mind, all I can say is that your original comment is based on 100% emotion and 0% analysis and rationality.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - csmpltn 2y ago
        I certainly agree that war, as experienced by humans on all sides of a conflict, is a form of terror. That's a simple emotional argument that everybody can relate to. It doesn't touch on the realities of war, especially a war that was forced on one side by another (which is the case here, with Hezbollah willingly deciding to shell and bomb Israel on a daily basis for the past 12 months, despite Israel not waging any war on Lebanon). What are you so fascinated with here, exactly?
        mistermann 2y ago
        This: > 100% emotion and 0% analysis I love the irony of it.
        ignoramous 2y ago
        Unsure why that comment was flagged. smh
        mistermann 2y ago
        Western culture and epistemology have a tumultuous relationship here in the early 21st century.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    Do you think that any military action with civilian impact constitutes terrorism? no war has ever been waged without collateral damage.
    - knodi123 2y ago
      war waged without collateral damage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War
      - ineedasername 2y ago
        At least one innocent farmer just trying to safeguard their farm might have suffered contusions and destruction of property! "Farmers attempted to herd the emus using trucks, but this proved ineffective; one truck even crashed after hitting an emu" https://www.britannica.com/topic/Emu-War https://www.britannica.com/topic/Emu-War
- shihab 2y ago
  do you realize that nurses in hospital, civil servants workers are among people carrying this device? That not all, not even majority of Hizbollah personnel have no military responsibility whatsoever?
  - csmpltn 2y ago
    There's absolutely no reason for uninvolved, random and peaceful civilians to be carrying a classified wartime-ready pager issued by a paramilitary terrorist organization. If you were carrying the device you're either Hezbollah, or cooperating with them - which makes you a legitimate military target. Israel has given Lebanon and Hezbollah enough ultimatums to stop the aggressions. This is what happens when diplomacy fails.
    - koolba 2y ago
      > If you were carrying the device you're either Hezbollah, or cooperating with them - which makes you a legitimate military target. Or you were standing in line next to a guy holding one while waiting to buy groceries. It’s clearly indiscriminate to the collateral damage.
      - csmpltn 2y ago
        But we already have videos of people standing in very close proximity to the devices being detonated - and not getting hurt. In-fact, many of the people carrying the device in their pockets ended up not sustaining life-threatening injuries. I'm not saying civilians weren't hurt by this. But I'm also saying that no war has 0% civilian casualties. Those two countries are at war with each other.
      - s1artibartfast 2y ago
        If they were truly indiscriminate and and indifferent to collateral damage, there are far easier and more effective ways to kill a few dozen people in Lebanon. The whole complex and contrived attack speaks of tying to minimize collateral damage.
      - 2y ago
- jajko 2y ago
  Terrorism definition is independent of whether there is ongoing war or not, lets not divert the subject with simple whataboutism. We all know what happened, on both sides, including deaths of tens of thousands of civilians including thousands of palestinian children who did fuck nothing to anybody, just were born at bad place at bad time. What would be enough kill ratio israeli : palestinian civilian, or even better israeli civilian : palestinian kid/baby that would satiate Israeli government to stop the war? Very conservative estimates put deaths of direct US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq to around 500k, meaning its 500:3 ratio and factual defeat of US army to withdraw and cut losses. So thats the threshold of civilized western world? Israel already surpassed that long time ago. They can't and won't win with Hamas and they know it, its exactly same situation as Taliban, ISIS etc. Regroup, strike back, stronger, smarter, better equipped, more motivated. Spiral of death can go on and on till there is nobody standing on neither side. If I had to choose where the next nuclear detonation happens it would be for me 50:50 Ukraine : Israel, and this is how you get there.
  - csmpltn 2y ago
    [flagged]
- dnakqozkfnrjq 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - csmpltn 2y ago
    > It’s a mistake not to acknowledge civilian casualties, and not to feel sorrow and even anger. I agree with you 100%, it's important to acknowledge civilian casualties. Many uninvolved Lebanese people don't want a war with Israel, and they don't deserve any of this. I truly feel very sorry for those people and I wish they would never have had to go through this. But at the same time, we can't let emotions alone dictate everything. There's a murderous paramilitary death cult operating from within the Lebanese territory that uses Lebanon for all its territory and resources to kill as many Jewish people (and non-Jews, as demonstrated recently with the missile attack that killed 10 Druze children in a football game) as possible and erase Israel. They don't care about your feelings, or who their victims are. They'll gladly kidnap and murder civilians, children, elderly - as long as they are an Israeli. It's truly tragic, but there really aren't too many ways out of this.
    - bamboozled 2y ago
      [flagged]
- captainkrtek 2y ago
  The unfortunate thing is that regardless of politics, this will be seen as further escalation that ratchets up the risk of greater regional conflict. All wars eventually end, its just a question of how long, and how much death (both militarily and civilian) will be endured by everyone in the region. I hope there are diplomatic possibilities to de-escalate, but it seems those windows are closing.
  - coding123 2y ago
    I don't know - it would seem that the wars there don't end, it's just continuous with intermittent slow downs.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  [flagged]
ericmcer 2y ago
Violence has been probably the biggest driver of innovation for us as a species. I would categorize thousands of weapons as "cool" viewed dispassionately. Aircraft carriers, Fighter Jets, Cruise missiles. They are all definitely cool when viewed from afar.
barbs 2y ago
Both things can be true
ridiculous_leke 2y ago
By that reasoning even Churchill is a terrorist.
- cassepipe 2y ago
  Which they would probably agree to. Purists do not care for practical matters such arbitrating what would be the best course of action in order to have the less casualties because for them the only acceptable number of casualties is zero because any war and casualty is immoral. I have sympathy for this kind of reasoning because it's been mine for a long time. There is something important for the preservation of the self in refusing all kinds of wrong in the world. The problem is that by refusing to engage with the world, they can affect nothing (and probably accept that, everybody should just stop being immoral, that's easy in their mind)
- Arubis 2y ago
  If you include his treatment of subjects of the British Raj, there’s plenty of folks that will agree with that labeling.

pdabbadabba 2y ago

I have no doubt that innocent civilians have been injured. But it's also worth noting that there are thousands of Hezbollah members, so the number alone doesn't necessarily tell us much about the number of civilians injured. (Similar to the casualty figures that come out of Gaza.) I hate the idea of any innocent civilian being injured. But it might also be instructive to consider the alternative: if Israel wanted to achieve similar results via a conventional war against Hezbollah, it seems virtually guaranteed that far more innocent people would have been injured and killed—not to mention the Israeli civilians on the other side, whose lives also matter.

random_upvoter 2y ago
> if Israel wanted to achieve similar results via a conventional war against Hezbollah, it seems virtually guaranteed that far more innocent people would have been injured and killed "It's OK that Israel causes excessive amounts of civilian casualties, because in the alternative scenario Israel would also cause excessive amounts of civilian casualties"
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    "Its war on terrorists" sure. by framing what's happening in that way you've already excused away most of the things people are upset about
    - pdabbadabba 2y ago
      I agree that the framing is tendentious (though not necessarily false). But I don't think much actually hinges on that. The point is still worth considering even if it's just a "war" rather than "war on terrorists." The linked article is a study on wars in general, not just wars "on terror."
    - 2y ago

fshbbdssbbgdd 2y ago

I wonder if people are unaware that Hezbollah and Israel have been shooting rockets at each other for months. There are roughly 1000 deaths in the conflict and hundreds of thousands of civilians evacuated. If we’re talking about harms to civilians, this incident is probably small compared to the war overall.

raxxorraxor 2y ago

These are Hezbollah pagers and Hezbollah only exists to terrorize Israel and it is their sole purpose. Of course there is still a danger of collateral risk, but I don't think it can get much more targeted.

sa-mao 2y ago
"Hezbollah only exists to terrorise Israel and it is their sole purpose." This is a very curious take, what makes you think a group of hundreds of thousands of people, investing so much time, efforts and resources, exposing themselves and their loved ones to fatal risks just to terrorise Israel?
- raxxorraxor 2y ago
  Eh, the history isn't a secret and the reason is that they are religious fundamentalists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah > According to Hezbollah's Deputy-General, Naim Qassem, the struggle against Israel is a core belief of Hezbollah and the central rationale of Hezbollah's existence. I tend to believe their own statement on this matter. Where do you see wiggle room for another argument? Or even to find the argument "curious"? What is curious about it?
- paulcole 2y ago
  Only on HN, “This is curious. Why would people do an irrational thing similar to the irrational things that people have done for the entirety of human existence?” A mystery indeed.