5 ms·

There are too many threads and this is too complicated a topic for a technology forum website so I’m not going to weigh in everywhere. But you yourself recogni

There are too many threads and this is too complicated a topic for a technology forum website so I’m not going to weigh in everywhere. But you yourself recognize that a) Hezbollah is a de facto government, not just a military or terrorist organization and that b) its folly to do some sort of algebra on casualties in these conflicts and intent is what matters. It’s hard to come up with a plausible intent for a strike that injured 2700 people, with only the weakest of targeting mechanisms across a population that ranges the gamut of occupations, other than terrorism. We would certainly view it as such if Hezbollah blew up 2700 phones of the Israeli government and military.

tptacek 2y ago
That depends on who the 2700 people are, right? If it's 2700 random people, I agree. If it's 2600 Hezbollah operatives, not so much. If Hezbollah managed to surgically strike 2600 IDF soldiers, injuring and killing an additional 100 bystanders, I promise you I would offer the same analysis. I'm measuring this against the standard of military operations conducted by western countries, the state of the art of which is Hellfire missiles fired into cars and apartment buildings. I'm trying to be hedge-y as I write this stuff. We could absolutely learn things that would change my take on this!
- bjourne 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - tptacek 2y ago
    No. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3
    - bjourne 2y ago
      Yes. The term you used was "operative" and it is not synonymous with "member of armed force".
      - tptacek 2y ago
        It indeed does. Unless you are a medic or a chaplain, if you are even under the effective command of Hezbollah, let alone employed by it, you're a valid combatant target. Uniforms and current participation in combat operations has nothing to do with it. If you want to make the claim that Hezbollah operates schools and hospitals and that employment at those institutions doesn't designate somebody as a combatant, I will absolutely agree with you. But it's very unlikely, to me, that those people are carrying Hezbollah military command and control telecoms devices. We could learn otherwise, and if we do, I'll acknowledge that. But from what we're learning now, it's not looking likely.
        bjourne 2y ago
        No, you emphatically are not. The criteria is membership in the armed forces: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule4 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule4 Had it been otherwise, practically everyone working for the Israeli state would also be a "valid combatant target". Including reservists since they are also "under the effective command" of the IDF. I have no idea who carries these pagers and neither does you, so I'll refrain from speculating.
        tptacek 2y ago
        In regular armies, activated reservists are valid combatant targets. Reservists become civilian, under the principle of distinction, when they are deactivated and fully integrate into civilian life. More applicably to the situation with Hezbollah, which is an irregular army, functional criteria apply; meaning, very roughly and in my paraphrase, "is some aspect of the armed wing of Hezbollah your day job?" I don't know that we disagree much here. We both agree that simply because Hezbollah operates a school does not distinguish the employees of that school as combatants. There are civilian combatants; for instance, whether or not your yourself were ever going to take up arms in Syria, if you work in a Hezbollah arms depot or weapons factory, even if you're just counting the bullets, you're most definitely a combatant. It depends. You're refraining from speculating on something I am clearly not refraining on. I get that. I am (much) further out on the limb than you are. When the evidence shows I'm way off on this stuff, I'll absolutely say so. The big place where our premises differ is: I believe Hezbollah pagers to be military equipment, and you believe random Lebanese people with weak associations to Hezbollah might carry them as well. I'll say right now that is not a crazy point of view; it's just one I don't currently share.
    - kasey_junk 2y ago
      These pagers almost certainly went off on n the hands of doctors and clerics. But again, this isn’t about some sort of ethical counting and categorizing of the injured. What can the intent of this attack be other than to spread terror? To say to the broad populace we will harm you when you least suspect it, independent of the military status between our countries and we will do it in surprising and asymmetric ways.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        It eliminated their entire command and control network, hospitalized hundreds of their officers and command staff, put the IRGC on notice that it has been comprehensively infiltrated, and will force months of internal investigations and purges. Further, it comes during a time where Iran has been publicly messaging about retaliation for the killing of Ismael Haniyeh, so there's a geopolitical angle to it as well: "we can do this, think about what we'll do next if you try launching another 300 drones at us". I don't think it's very hard to make a military validity argument here (of course, it's easy for me to do that, since I'm shoplifting an argument from Noga Tarnopolsky and Oz Katerji here).
        bjourne 2y ago
        Spreading fear is generally considered terrorism - not a proper military objective. You have to realize that the argument you're making goes both ways here.
        tptacek 2y ago
        In every military conflict in the history of warfare, combatants have taken steps to inspire fear in their adversaries. You may be providing a definition of terrorism, but I don't think it's a useful one; I think you need to refine it more if you want to make it operable here. In any case, where you use the word "fear" I would probably use "deterrence".
        bjourne 2y ago
        Deterrence indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre
  - dralley 2y ago
    >That is, they were not uniformed soldiers engaged in combat. Hence, they were not legitimate targets. They may not even have touched a gun if they served in Hizbollah's civil administration. Had precision strikes existed in 1944, nobody would complain if a Nazi office party got hit with a missile just because "they were civil administrators, not soldiers"
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It wouldn't matter. They would have been considered combatants then, and are explicitly designated so under the Geneva Conventions now. Unless you're a medic or a chaplain, you cannot safely work for (or, really, even be "under the effective command of") Lebanese Hezbollah under the laws of armed combat. To Kasey's point, the reciprocal is true, too! The laws of armed combat permit Hezbollah strikes on Israeli command and administrative staff.
    - bjourne 2y ago
      [flagged]

tptacek 2y ago

That depends on who the 2700 people are, right? If it's 2700 random people, I agree. If it's 2600 Hezbollah operatives, not so much. If Hezbollah managed to surgically strike 2600 IDF soldiers, injuring and killing an additional 100 bystanders, I promise you I would offer the same analysis. I'm measuring this against the standard of military operations conducted by western countries, the state of the art of which is Hellfire missiles fired into cars and apartment buildings. I'm trying to be hedge-y as I write this stuff. We could absolutely learn things that would change my take on this!

bjourne 2y ago
[flagged]
- tptacek 2y ago
  No. All members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict are combatants, except medical and religious personnel. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule3
  - bjourne 2y ago
    Yes. The term you used was "operative" and it is not synonymous with "member of armed force".
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It indeed does. Unless you are a medic or a chaplain, if you are even under the effective command of Hezbollah, let alone employed by it, you're a valid combatant target. Uniforms and current participation in combat operations has nothing to do with it. If you want to make the claim that Hezbollah operates schools and hospitals and that employment at those institutions doesn't designate somebody as a combatant, I will absolutely agree with you. But it's very unlikely, to me, that those people are carrying Hezbollah military command and control telecoms devices. We could learn otherwise, and if we do, I'll acknowledge that. But from what we're learning now, it's not looking likely.
      - bjourne 2y ago
        No, you emphatically are not. The criteria is membership in the armed forces: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule4 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule4 Had it been otherwise, practically everyone working for the Israeli state would also be a "valid combatant target". Including reservists since they are also "under the effective command" of the IDF. I have no idea who carries these pagers and neither does you, so I'll refrain from speculating.
        tptacek 2y ago
        In regular armies, activated reservists are valid combatant targets. Reservists become civilian, under the principle of distinction, when they are deactivated and fully integrate into civilian life. More applicably to the situation with Hezbollah, which is an irregular army, functional criteria apply; meaning, very roughly and in my paraphrase, "is some aspect of the armed wing of Hezbollah your day job?" I don't know that we disagree much here. We both agree that simply because Hezbollah operates a school does not distinguish the employees of that school as combatants. There are civilian combatants; for instance, whether or not your yourself were ever going to take up arms in Syria, if you work in a Hezbollah arms depot or weapons factory, even if you're just counting the bullets, you're most definitely a combatant. It depends. You're refraining from speculating on something I am clearly not refraining on. I get that. I am (much) further out on the limb than you are. When the evidence shows I'm way off on this stuff, I'll absolutely say so. The big place where our premises differ is: I believe Hezbollah pagers to be military equipment, and you believe random Lebanese people with weak associations to Hezbollah might carry them as well. I'll say right now that is not a crazy point of view; it's just one I don't currently share.
  - kasey_junk 2y ago
    These pagers almost certainly went off on n the hands of doctors and clerics. But again, this isn’t about some sort of ethical counting and categorizing of the injured. What can the intent of this attack be other than to spread terror? To say to the broad populace we will harm you when you least suspect it, independent of the military status between our countries and we will do it in surprising and asymmetric ways.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      It eliminated their entire command and control network, hospitalized hundreds of their officers and command staff, put the IRGC on notice that it has been comprehensively infiltrated, and will force months of internal investigations and purges. Further, it comes during a time where Iran has been publicly messaging about retaliation for the killing of Ismael Haniyeh, so there's a geopolitical angle to it as well: "we can do this, think about what we'll do next if you try launching another 300 drones at us". I don't think it's very hard to make a military validity argument here (of course, it's easy for me to do that, since I'm shoplifting an argument from Noga Tarnopolsky and Oz Katerji here).
      - bjourne 2y ago
        Spreading fear is generally considered terrorism - not a proper military objective. You have to realize that the argument you're making goes both ways here.
        tptacek 2y ago
        In every military conflict in the history of warfare, combatants have taken steps to inspire fear in their adversaries. You may be providing a definition of terrorism, but I don't think it's a useful one; I think you need to refine it more if you want to make it operable here. In any case, where you use the word "fear" I would probably use "deterrence".
        bjourne 2y ago
        Deterrence indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre
- dralley 2y ago
  >That is, they were not uniformed soldiers engaged in combat. Hence, they were not legitimate targets. They may not even have touched a gun if they served in Hizbollah's civil administration. Had precision strikes existed in 1944, nobody would complain if a Nazi office party got hit with a missile just because "they were civil administrators, not soldiers"
  - tptacek 2y ago
    It wouldn't matter. They would have been considered combatants then, and are explicitly designated so under the Geneva Conventions now. Unless you're a medic or a chaplain, you cannot safely work for (or, really, even be "under the effective command of") Lebanese Hezbollah under the laws of armed combat. To Kasey's point, the reciprocal is true, too! The laws of armed combat permit Hezbollah strikes on Israeli command and administrative staff.
  - bjourne 2y ago
    [flagged]