4 ms·

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

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
      - tptacek 2y ago
        I have no idea why you think that is a comparable event. What I think may be happening here is that my reply to Kasey is being read as a justification for attacks on civilian populations. That is not a thing I believe; as you know, from the rest of this thread, my contention is that this attack targeted combatants.
        bjourne 2y ago
        Deterrence happened to be the stated purpose of the Lidice massacre. And it probably "deterred" the Czech resistance. That in and of itself did not legalize the attack. Here we have an Israeli attack involving indiscriminate maiming. You are claiming that "inspiring fear" and "deterrence" legitimizes this attack. The attack targeted pagers and anyone in vicinity of those pagers. That's exactly equivalent of dropping a bomb in a trashcan and saying you targeted soldiers that may or may not pass by as the bomb detonates.
        tptacek 2y ago
        I don't think it's productive to reply like this without acknowledging that we're operating from different premises. You're calling this "indiscriminate maiming", and I'm claiming these "maimings" are extraordinarily discriminating: they exclusively target Hezbollah military personnel, the only people carrying these devices. You clearly disagree with that premise, but that's the dispute, not whether one of us believes that massacring an entire city is a legitimate use of military force.
        bjourne 2y ago
        It's not a matter of "operating from different principles", it's a matter of facts. Among the killed were a 10-year-old girl and among the wounded were Iran's ambassador to Lebanon. Mouthbreathers will say "Iran bad so wounding ambassador good", but an ambassador is a noncombatant, hence wounding them is prima facie evidence of an indiscriminate attack. Moreover, I use the word "indiscriminate" because it has a specific meaning in IHL which you, apparently, is unaware of. Let me cite ICRC (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12): > Indiscriminate attacks are those: > (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective; > (b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or > (c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; > and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. It is clear that whoever detonated these remote-controlled bombs had no control over who they injured. Thus, the effects of combat couldn't "be limited as required by international humanitarian law". Hence, the attack was indiscriminate. If you don't trust my interpretation of the IHL, read the ICRC's interpretation: > But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations > are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are > uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military > objectives and civilians or civilian objects without > distinction. The US Air Force Pamphlet gives the example of > biological weapons.[17] Even though biological weapons might be > directed against military objectives, their very nature means that > after being launched their effects escape from the control of the > launcher and may strike both combatants and civilians and > necessarily create a risk of excessive civilian casualties. Moreover, there is the principle of proportionality. You claim "deterrence" motivates the attack and the loss of civilian life. But spreading fear is not a military objective in the first place, hence it does not full-fill the principle of proportionality.

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
    - tptacek 2y ago
      I have no idea why you think that is a comparable event. What I think may be happening here is that my reply to Kasey is being read as a justification for attacks on civilian populations. That is not a thing I believe; as you know, from the rest of this thread, my contention is that this attack targeted combatants.
      - bjourne 2y ago
        Deterrence happened to be the stated purpose of the Lidice massacre. And it probably "deterred" the Czech resistance. That in and of itself did not legalize the attack. Here we have an Israeli attack involving indiscriminate maiming. You are claiming that "inspiring fear" and "deterrence" legitimizes this attack. The attack targeted pagers and anyone in vicinity of those pagers. That's exactly equivalent of dropping a bomb in a trashcan and saying you targeted soldiers that may or may not pass by as the bomb detonates.
        tptacek 2y ago
        I don't think it's productive to reply like this without acknowledging that we're operating from different premises. You're calling this "indiscriminate maiming", and I'm claiming these "maimings" are extraordinarily discriminating: they exclusively target Hezbollah military personnel, the only people carrying these devices. You clearly disagree with that premise, but that's the dispute, not whether one of us believes that massacring an entire city is a legitimate use of military force.
        bjourne 2y ago
        It's not a matter of "operating from different principles", it's a matter of facts. Among the killed were a 10-year-old girl and among the wounded were Iran's ambassador to Lebanon. Mouthbreathers will say "Iran bad so wounding ambassador good", but an ambassador is a noncombatant, hence wounding them is prima facie evidence of an indiscriminate attack. Moreover, I use the word "indiscriminate" because it has a specific meaning in IHL which you, apparently, is unaware of. Let me cite ICRC (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12): > Indiscriminate attacks are those: > (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective; > (b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or > (c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; > and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. It is clear that whoever detonated these remote-controlled bombs had no control over who they injured. Thus, the effects of combat couldn't "be limited as required by international humanitarian law". Hence, the attack was indiscriminate. If you don't trust my interpretation of the IHL, read the ICRC's interpretation: > But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations > are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are > uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military > objectives and civilians or civilian objects without > distinction. The US Air Force Pamphlet gives the example of > biological weapons.[17] Even though biological weapons might be > directed against military objectives, their very nature means that > after being launched their effects escape from the control of the > launcher and may strike both combatants and civilians and > necessarily create a risk of excessive civilian casualties. Moreover, there is the principle of proportionality. You claim "deterrence" motivates the attack and the loss of civilian life. But spreading fear is not a military objective in the first place, hence it does not full-fill the principle of proportionality.