4 ms·

I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.

by ibejoeb 2y ago

dijit 2y ago
And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?
- lm28469 2y ago
  You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
  - dijit 2y ago
    Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
    - lawlessone 2y ago
      >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
      - dijit 2y ago
        Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).
        lawlessone 2y ago
        >Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. Why? They killed 12 people including a child. If it was bank robbery and the police shot through a child but killed 11 robbers there would be a lot of heads rolling at that police department.
        dijit 2y ago
        No there wouldn't. Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander is well within limits of even a civilian police force, military ones are considered much more broad. NATO sets the acceptable loss threshold at 4:1; for every 4 combatants killed, 1 civilian is considered acceptable. It's very fluid, but you'll be hard pressed to find something more conservative than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio Yes, this is callous, and cold, and awful, but emotion has no place here, we're talking about people on both sides who feel like they are fighting for their right to exist. This is quite literally war, and there will be casualties. Truth be told, while I'm not giddy and children dying, I'm glad we're talking about so few civilian casualties despite causing so much damage to Hezbollah operatives and operations.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander You aren't even getting the military-civilian ratio for the first wave right. According to the Lebanese Health Ministry we have at least 6 civilians killed (including 4 healthcare workers and 2 children), so that's at most a 1:1 ratio, far less than the 4:1 rate that you cite as "acceptable". And this doesn't even touch on the vastly larger number of wounded (2,750 just for the first wave). By all indications these devices were intended to maim even more so to kill -- and to do so a great scale. From Wikipedia: At least 12 people were killed after the first wave of attacks,[73][1][74] and more than 2,750 were wounded.[6][7] Civilians were also killed,[11][14][15] including four healthcare workers[75] and two children.[76] It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers.[20] Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad said the vast majority of those being treated in emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear.[77] He added the casualties included elderly people as well as young children.
    - lm28469 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - dijit 2y ago
        Sabotage of military devices (with military targets) is permitted so long as there is minimal (or minimised) harm to civilians. http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur
        lm28469 2y ago
        ctrl-f devices: 0 results > To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected. Do you think they meant: booby trapping is _illegal_ unless it's to harm military personnel ? lol
        dijit 2y ago
        No, booby trapping is really clear: "Rule 80. The use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians is prohibited." Examples of protected objects are childrens toys or medical supplies bearing the insignia of the red cross; but if you want further reading: See, the military manuals of Belgium (ibid., § 32), France (ibid., § 39) and Germany (ibid., § 43) - hard to read without translations though. Examples of protected persons include, of course, doctors who wear the red-cross insignia. However it's also a war-crime to wear this insignia and act in the interests of any power exclusively, or operate as a combatant. - so, owning military equipment that is given out by the high command of a terror organisation would immediately disqualify you, and if you survived the blast you would be facing a tribunal. However, Booby-traps which are used in a way not prohibited by the current rule are still subject to the general rules on the conduct of hostilities, in particular the principle of distinction (see Rules 1 and 7- linked below) and the principle of proportionality (see Rule 14). In addition, the rule that all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (see Rule 15) must also be respected. But proportionality is in play if you do not fall below the NATO recommended 4:1 combatant:civilian ratio. Which it seems Israel didn't. Rule 1: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 Rule 7: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7 Rule 14: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14 Military Manuals: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima Sources: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources

I'm not disputing that. But that's not where stuff happened. They detonated wherever the recipient happened to be.

dijit 2y ago

And materially it's different than assassinating them with a pistol because?

lm28469 2y ago
You're arguing in such bad faith... With your analogy it would be like emptying the mag in the general direction of the car of the target, praying the target actually is in the car and praying there is no one else anywhere close to him.
- dijit 2y ago
  Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here: 1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere. 2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality). 3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all. I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.
  - lawlessone 2y ago
    >3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population How do you know this ? That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".
    - dijit 2y ago
      Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman. You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).
      - lawlessone 2y ago
        >Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you. Why? They killed 12 people including a child. If it was bank robbery and the police shot through a child but killed 11 robbers there would be a lot of heads rolling at that police department.
        dijit 2y ago
        No there wouldn't. Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander is well within limits of even a civilian police force, military ones are considered much more broad. NATO sets the acceptable loss threshold at 4:1; for every 4 combatants killed, 1 civilian is considered acceptable. It's very fluid, but you'll be hard pressed to find something more conservative than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio Yes, this is callous, and cold, and awful, but emotion has no place here, we're talking about people on both sides who feel like they are fighting for their right to exist. This is quite literally war, and there will be casualties. Truth be told, while I'm not giddy and children dying, I'm glad we're talking about so few civilian casualties despite causing so much damage to Hezbollah operatives and operations.
        aguaviva 2y ago
        Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander You aren't even getting the military-civilian ratio for the first wave right. According to the Lebanese Health Ministry we have at least 6 civilians killed (including 4 healthcare workers and 2 children), so that's at most a 1:1 ratio, far less than the 4:1 rate that you cite as "acceptable". And this doesn't even touch on the vastly larger number of wounded (2,750 just for the first wave). By all indications these devices were intended to maim even more so to kill -- and to do so a great scale. From Wikipedia: At least 12 people were killed after the first wave of attacks,[73][1][74] and more than 2,750 were wounded.[6][7] Civilians were also killed,[11][14][15] including four healthcare workers[75] and two children.[76] It is not clear if only Hezbollah members were carrying the pagers.[20] Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad said the vast majority of those being treated in emergency rooms were in civilian clothing and their Hezbollah affiliation was unclear.[77] He added the casualties included elderly people as well as young children.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dijit 2y ago
      Sabotage of military devices (with military targets) is permitted so long as there is minimal (or minimised) harm to civilians. http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur
      - lm28469 2y ago
        ctrl-f devices: 0 results > To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected. Do you think they meant: booby trapping is _illegal_ unless it's to harm military personnel ? lol
        dijit 2y ago
        No, booby trapping is really clear: "Rule 80. The use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians is prohibited." Examples of protected objects are childrens toys or medical supplies bearing the insignia of the red cross; but if you want further reading: See, the military manuals of Belgium (ibid., § 32), France (ibid., § 39) and Germany (ibid., § 43) - hard to read without translations though. Examples of protected persons include, of course, doctors who wear the red-cross insignia. However it's also a war-crime to wear this insignia and act in the interests of any power exclusively, or operate as a combatant. - so, owning military equipment that is given out by the high command of a terror organisation would immediately disqualify you, and if you survived the blast you would be facing a tribunal. However, Booby-traps which are used in a way not prohibited by the current rule are still subject to the general rules on the conduct of hostilities, in particular the principle of distinction (see Rules 1 and 7- linked below) and the principle of proportionality (see Rule 14). In addition, the rule that all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (see Rule 15) must also be respected. But proportionality is in play if you do not fall below the NATO recommended 4:1 combatant:civilian ratio. Which it seems Israel didn't. Rule 1: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 Rule 7: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7 Rule 14: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14 Military Manuals: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima Sources: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources