36 ms·

It doesn’t look very surgical to me given the civilian casualties and general disregard of what can happen to innocent people. If anything this looks more like

It doesn’t look very surgical to me given the civilian casualties and general disregard of what can happen to innocent people. If anything this looks more like a state-sponsored terrorist attack than covert ops with collateral damage.

xenospn 2y ago
Anything more surgical than this is actual surgery.
gruez 2y ago
Agreed. Stuxnet was "surgical". Causing hundreds of explosions in proximity of civilians is not.
- mmastrac 2y ago
  Given the videos showing explosions next to civilians (< 1m in one case) that walk away unharmed afterwards, I'd say that this is pretty surgical.
spondylosaurus 2y ago
And very possibly in violation of the Geneva Convention's prohibition of "indiscriminate" attacks: Rule 12. 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.
- krick 2y ago
  Not like they ever really cared for Geneva Conventions and such.
  - exe34 2y ago
    would the Geneva convention prefer smart bombs? could the Geneva convention please tell the terrorists to stop hiding in their family and community?
- borski 2y ago
  (a) Disrupt Hezbollah’s communications network and take out operatives. (b) The pagers were specifically distributed to Hezbollah operatives, not civilians. It targeted, by definition, the owners of those pagers, supporting the military objective. (c) It was limited, by definition. This contained tiny amount of explosives, focused very much on targeting the owner of the device, not “civilians or civilian objects without distinction” (from military objectives). No violation here.
  - spondylosaurus 2y ago
    An explosive going off in a grocery store while people shop is "limited, by definition"?
    - borski 2y ago
      A 30g explosive going off in a device that is owned by a militant? Yes, that is limited, by definition. Once again, people in that grocery store who were standing near the militant mostly walked away - you can see that on nearly every video that has been released. A non-targeted attack would have been a rocket hitting the grocery store. This was, by definition, a targeted attack. Even if a person had stood there and shot the militant directly, and there had been a civilian that caught a stray bullet, this would still have been a targeted attack. As it is, eight Hezbollah militants have died, and the one civilian injury was a Hezbollah militant’s daughter; killing a child was clearly not the intent. That’s a successful military operation.
    - HDThoreaun 2y ago
      Yes? Watch the videos, people 3 feet away were completely unharmed.
borski 2y ago
It is targeted, by definition. Every pager was owned by a Hezbollah member or was about to be. Same with the walkies. That there was collateral damage is unfortunate, but Israel was definitely not indiscriminately targeting civilians, which is what would make it terrorism. This was a surgical strike that happened to have some unfortunate collateral damage. Well within the accepted rules of war.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  It was not unfortunate collateral damage in the sense of unknown unknown. Civilian casualties must have been anticipated and nothing has been done to prevent them. It is not „accepted“ rules of war, but normalized disregard of human life.
  - borski 2y ago
    Once again: watch any of the videos. The vast majority of them involve anyone standing around the operative walking away just fine. This was a targeted attack. Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them, and that is the point.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      > Once again: watch any of the videos What makes you think that I did not watch them? And why do you think a few videos circulating online are representative of a few thousands explosions? > Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated?
      - borski 2y ago
        Didn’t mean to imply you hadn’t watched them at all; was simply trying to use them as evidence. > What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated? The point I’m trying to make is that there was a very small amount of explosive in each device. They could have added more material had they wanted to do more damage. There were many ways to make this far more damaging, and they could simply have shot rockets or bombs from the air. This was a targeted attack, focused on the specific users of these devices, who are Hezbollah militants. Bystanders were not intended to be harmed, which makes this, by definition, a discriminate and surgical attack on Hezbollah militants. I’m not really sure what about that isn’t clear.
ineedasername 2y ago
Actual combat and conventional attacks on a guerilla force embedded in an urban civilian population is far more catastrophic and less surgical than the risk of being inside the ~0.5m lethal radius of these pagers. It's a horrific attack with awful innocent deaths at the same time that any conventional attack that achieved the same impact on Hezbollah would have been even worse for those around them.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - ineedasername 2y ago
    I'm not saying it could have been worse. I'm saying it has been worse and usually is worse. Otherwise: 1) UN Resolution: Done 2) Camp-David (or other such): Hezbollah has repeatedly refused to engage in any negotiations. 3) Something New: Okay, but until a never-before-seen peace genius comes up with that, and given the ineffectiveness of #1 and #2, we're left with the status quo where less bad options are the awful best to be hoped for.
    - ivan_gammel 2y ago
      > UN Resolution: Done Well, not exactly. The recent actions of Hezbollah are connected to Palestinian cause. If Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, what does it leave to Hezbollah? It may not collapse, but Palestine becomes a major political factor. That’s the reason I mentioned Camp-David and „something new“. If statehood of Palestine is secured and adequate solution for refugees is offered, it will be the key to resolution of many conflicts in that region.
      - ineedasername 2y ago
        >it will be the key to resolution of many conflicts in that region. If you're broadening the discussion to the wider context, how do you reconcile this opinion with the origins and current stated goals of Hezbollah and other groups involved in these many conflicts? Hezbollah is fundamentally against the existence of Israel: "It's destination is manifested in our motto, 'Death to Israel'." --Hezbollah secretary general Nasrallah circa 2022 I don't know why you keep mentioning Camp David if you are thinking in terms of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has the destruction of Israel baked into its founding charter. In fact that charter specifically calls out the Camp David agreement from 1978 as treacherous and outright rejects any negotiated peace, especially of the "Camp David" variety: "These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters." (Chapter 13 of the Hamas Covenant)
raxxorraxor 2y ago
Do you have an example of a weapon of war that is more surgical? I think this is the typical Israel criticism that is devoid of any realistic basic to be honest.
- ivan_gammel 2y ago
  Please spend some time reading this whole thread to understand better my arguments. Your question is based on flawed logic and does not require an answer in context of what’s going on.

xenospn 2y ago

Anything more surgical than this is actual surgery.

gruez 2y ago

Agreed. Stuxnet was "surgical". Causing hundreds of explosions in proximity of civilians is not.

mmastrac 2y ago
Given the videos showing explosions next to civilians (< 1m in one case) that walk away unharmed afterwards, I'd say that this is pretty surgical.

spondylosaurus 2y ago

And very possibly in violation of the Geneva Convention's prohibition of "indiscriminate" attacks: Rule 12. 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.

krick 2y ago
Not like they ever really cared for Geneva Conventions and such.
- exe34 2y ago
  would the Geneva convention prefer smart bombs? could the Geneva convention please tell the terrorists to stop hiding in their family and community?
borski 2y ago
(a) Disrupt Hezbollah’s communications network and take out operatives. (b) The pagers were specifically distributed to Hezbollah operatives, not civilians. It targeted, by definition, the owners of those pagers, supporting the military objective. (c) It was limited, by definition. This contained tiny amount of explosives, focused very much on targeting the owner of the device, not “civilians or civilian objects without distinction” (from military objectives). No violation here.
- spondylosaurus 2y ago
  An explosive going off in a grocery store while people shop is "limited, by definition"?
  - borski 2y ago
    A 30g explosive going off in a device that is owned by a militant? Yes, that is limited, by definition. Once again, people in that grocery store who were standing near the militant mostly walked away - you can see that on nearly every video that has been released. A non-targeted attack would have been a rocket hitting the grocery store. This was, by definition, a targeted attack. Even if a person had stood there and shot the militant directly, and there had been a civilian that caught a stray bullet, this would still have been a targeted attack. As it is, eight Hezbollah militants have died, and the one civilian injury was a Hezbollah militant’s daughter; killing a child was clearly not the intent. That’s a successful military operation.
  - HDThoreaun 2y ago
    Yes? Watch the videos, people 3 feet away were completely unharmed.

borski 2y ago

It is targeted, by definition. Every pager was owned by a Hezbollah member or was about to be. Same with the walkies. That there was collateral damage is unfortunate, but Israel was definitely not indiscriminately targeting civilians, which is what would make it terrorism. This was a surgical strike that happened to have some unfortunate collateral damage. Well within the accepted rules of war.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
It was not unfortunate collateral damage in the sense of unknown unknown. Civilian casualties must have been anticipated and nothing has been done to prevent them. It is not „accepted“ rules of war, but normalized disregard of human life.
- borski 2y ago
  Once again: watch any of the videos. The vast majority of them involve anyone standing around the operative walking away just fine. This was a targeted attack. Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them, and that is the point.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    > Once again: watch any of the videos What makes you think that I did not watch them? And why do you think a few videos circulating online are representative of a few thousands explosions? > Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated?
    - borski 2y ago
      Didn’t mean to imply you hadn’t watched them at all; was simply trying to use them as evidence. > What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated? The point I’m trying to make is that there was a very small amount of explosive in each device. They could have added more material had they wanted to do more damage. There were many ways to make this far more damaging, and they could simply have shot rockets or bombs from the air. This was a targeted attack, focused on the specific users of these devices, who are Hezbollah militants. Bystanders were not intended to be harmed, which makes this, by definition, a discriminate and surgical attack on Hezbollah militants. I’m not really sure what about that isn’t clear.

ineedasername 2y ago

Actual combat and conventional attacks on a guerilla force embedded in an urban civilian population is far more catastrophic and less surgical than the risk of being inside the ~0.5m lethal radius of these pagers. It's a horrific attack with awful innocent deaths at the same time that any conventional attack that achieved the same impact on Hezbollah would have been even worse for those around them.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
[flagged]
- ineedasername 2y ago
  I'm not saying it could have been worse. I'm saying it has been worse and usually is worse. Otherwise: 1) UN Resolution: Done 2) Camp-David (or other such): Hezbollah has repeatedly refused to engage in any negotiations. 3) Something New: Okay, but until a never-before-seen peace genius comes up with that, and given the ineffectiveness of #1 and #2, we're left with the status quo where less bad options are the awful best to be hoped for.
  - ivan_gammel 2y ago
    > UN Resolution: Done Well, not exactly. The recent actions of Hezbollah are connected to Palestinian cause. If Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, what does it leave to Hezbollah? It may not collapse, but Palestine becomes a major political factor. That’s the reason I mentioned Camp-David and „something new“. If statehood of Palestine is secured and adequate solution for refugees is offered, it will be the key to resolution of many conflicts in that region.
    - ineedasername 2y ago
      >it will be the key to resolution of many conflicts in that region. If you're broadening the discussion to the wider context, how do you reconcile this opinion with the origins and current stated goals of Hezbollah and other groups involved in these many conflicts? Hezbollah is fundamentally against the existence of Israel: "It's destination is manifested in our motto, 'Death to Israel'." --Hezbollah secretary general Nasrallah circa 2022 I don't know why you keep mentioning Camp David if you are thinking in terms of Palestinian statehood. Hamas has the destruction of Israel baked into its founding charter. In fact that charter specifically calls out the Camp David agreement from 1978 as treacherous and outright rejects any negotiated peace, especially of the "Camp David" variety: "These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters." (Chapter 13 of the Hamas Covenant)

raxxorraxor 2y ago

Do you have an example of a weapon of war that is more surgical? I think this is the typical Israel criticism that is devoid of any realistic basic to be honest.

ivan_gammel 2y ago
Please spend some time reading this whole thread to understand better my arguments. Your question is based on flawed logic and does not require an answer in context of what’s going on.