23 ms·
I'm genuinely curious: how is this not considered terrorism on Israel's part? (or is it considered terrorism?) From a tactical standpoint, this is very similar
by Arch485 2y ago
I'm genuinely curious: how is this not considered terrorism on Israel's part? (or is it considered terrorism?)
From a tactical standpoint, this is very similar, and the only big difference I see is that this is technologically more advanced/more complex than just planting a bomb or something.
If it's not terrorism, what is the differentiating factor(s)?
*side note: I'm quite sure other western countries have used tactics that I would call terrorism as well. This isn't meant to be a callout or anti-anything post. I'm genuinely curious where the line is drawn.
- kvgr 2y ago[flagged]
- ivan_gammel 2y agoIt is terrorism if the attack is planned in such a way, where innocent people will suffer with very high probability and nothing is done to prevent that.
- N_A_T_E 2y agoIt's terrorism if non-combatants are the target. These attacks targeted combatants who were being sent information to conduct combat through the very same devices that exploded.
- ivan_gammel 2y agoWhen planning such operation you cannot be certain that: 1. all the devices will land in hands of legitimate targets 2. all those devices will be actually used by targets at the moment of explosion 3. there will be no civilians in the range of explosion Because of that civilian casualties should be anticipated at unknown scale. Since Israel pulled the trigger knowing that, it means they deliberately targeted civilians along with legitimate targets.
- mrguyorama 2y ago>It's terrorism if non-combatants are the target This is actually insufficient, unless you think the bombing of Berlin was terrorism. If your attack is about primarily about reducing military capability then it isn't terrorism. Bombing a tank factory staffed entirely by civilians is not terrorism. Launching an expensive cruise missile against a single apartment block is probably terrorism, but if that apartment block houses all the scientists of the Manhattan project, maybe it's not. Bombing a military base isn't terrorism even if you end up killing all the families of the soldiers stationed there.
- yunohn 2y agoSo literally all of the USA’s drone killings in the Middle East are terrorism? I’m ok with that definition.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- codedokode 2y agoHow can we qualify atomic bombing of Japan during WW2 under this definition?
- ivan_gammel 2y agoWar crime. Same as Coventry, Dresden and Leningrad.
- anigbrowl 2y agoAbsolutely, unreservedly terrorism. Same thing with the use of napalm and defoliants in Vietnam.
- Zanfa 2y agoI can’t think of a more targeted attack than through items carried exclusively by combatants. Even an in-person special ops team would likely cause more collateral damage, let alone something like R9X.
- KennyBlanken 2y agoInflicting casualties on innocent people to instill terror in the population has literally been Israel's military policy for at least half a century.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago[flagged]
- snird 2y ago[dead]
- Saturnial22 2y ago[dead]
- kelipso 2y agoTo me it just looks like rhetoric, an us vs. them type deal. Call something terrorism so that you can justify using any kind of violence against them basically.
- robertlagrant 2y agoNot really. Not all violence is terrorism. Not all bad things are terrorism either. But terrorism is always bad. Ukrainians killing Russian soldiers isn't terrorism. Hezbollah trying to kill Israeli civilians is terrorism.
- kelipso 2y agoWhat would you call Russians killing Ukrainian soldiers and IDF killing Lebanese civilians then?
- robertlagrant 2y ago> What would you call Russians killing Ukrainian soldiers War.
- 2Gkashmiri 2y ago[flagged]
- robertlagrant 2y ago[flagged]
- danbruc 2y agoBut terrorism is always bad. Suppose some country occupies another country and the occupied country has no proper army to fight back, therefore they resort to methods of unconventional warfare to fight back against the occupation. Would some call this terrorism? Would this qualify as terrorism given some proper definition of the term and objective judgment of the situation? Would it be bad? What if they not only target the military of the occupier but also their civilians as it is them who voted for the government doing the occupation? What if they did this out of some kind of necessity because targeting the occupying military is not effective given the power imbalance?
- karaterobot 2y agoIf terrorism is violence against non-combatants to further political goals, this isn't terrorism.
- kstenerud 2y agoIt's not terrorism when you're on the winning side. That's how it's always been.
- hilux 2y agoThat's literally true, and I don't mean that in a snarky way. Everyone who ever had a history class should know this. I'm disappointed that this thread has devolved into an angry and pointless political debate, when it could instead have been a cool technical exploration of how Mossad pulled it off. Come on, Hacker News!
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- GuinansEyebrows 2y agoWhat is “cool” in a conversation about how people were killed? This isn’t a movie. There is no novelty in death.
- golergka 2y ago[flagged]
- GuinansEyebrows 2y ago[flagged]
- coffeebeqn 2y agoWikipedia: > Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants
- minkles 2y agoConsidering Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organisation in many countries, this probably should be considered an anti-terrorist operation. The targets are enemy combatants. Also notably, it clearly did not intentionally target civilians, although there may be civilian casualties which is uncharacteristic of a terrorist attack.
- guerrilla 2y agoTwo wrongs don't make a right.
- minkles 2y agoBut it stops a third wrong.
- lupusreal 2y agoIt absolutely does not. The violence will continue with both sides dishing it out and feeling completely justified in doing so because of what was previously done to them.
- minkles 2y agoSo what's your solution then? Incidentally it does work. It's just horrible. Nagasaki / Hiroshima are a fine example of forced capitulation. Now I'm not suggesting nuking anyone but the best way this ends, with the lowest future body count is someone wins decisively at this point.
- secstate 2y agoCorrection, the best way this ends now is that Bibi lives to a nice old age and dies of natural causes and not in prison. This is not the Empire of Japan. This is a poorly funded proxy war being kept just below a boil so certain members of Israel's political class are not found to be criminals.
- gryzzly 2y ago[flagged]
- Arch485 2y agoYes, I am aware. I'm mostly asking why this operation, _in addition to_ what Hezbollah does, is not also considered terrorism. Sounds like the tl;dr is that civilians aren't the primary target, therefore it is not terrorism.
- gryzzly 2y agoand how did you think about it? were you similarly unsure when coalition of western countries fought with ISIS?
- tptacek 2y agoHezbollah is a military peer of Israel and the two are openly at war.
- stetrain 2y agoThe definition of terrorism is controversial and political, so there isn't a hard answer. But I think a general distinction is the targeting of combatants vs civilians. There is a difference between infiltrating military or para-military organizations or operations and intentionally targeting mass casualties of civilians for attention.
- rtsil 2y agoI don't know about that. When Al Quaeda attacked the USS Cole, a purely military vessel without a single civilian casualty, the US administration and the entire US military called it an act of terrorrism.
- stetrain 2y agoSure. "The definition of terrorism is controversial and political." How governments, media, etc. use that word is often politically loaded and not based on some agreed objective definition.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- PepperdineG 2y agoAl Qaeda isn't a nation-state so by definition it falls into terrorism. It's like if Greenpeace sunk a military vessel because the sonar was killing sea life that would be terrorism. It would have some serious side effects if it was OK for private non-governmental actors being able to target militaries and be seen as legitimate in their actions.
- anigbrowl 2y agoBut by definition the founders of the USA were terrorists. And they knew it too, viz. Benjamin Franklin's famous line 'Gentlemen, we must all hang together or we shall most assuredly hang separately.' Preemptively invalidating all non-state actors is just a way for people with power to avoid challenges to it. Every single oppressive regime describes rebels as terrorists and employs circular arguments to assert its own legitimacy. Using this to dismiss military attacks on military targets is, frankly, bullshit.
- bpodgursky 2y agoModern war obviously doesn't follow all the rules the Geneva convention assumed (Hezbollah militants don't wear their insignia and IDs) but in practice it seems fairly effectively targeted given the casualty breakdown so it'd be a hard case to make.
- omginternets 2y agoThe argument is that the IDF is targeting enemy combatants, and not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike, e.g. Hamas). The existence of non-combatant casualties alone does not imply terrorism.
- newspaper1 2y agoThe IDF has killed orders of magnitude more civilians than Hamas.
- gryzzly 2y agoIt is Hamas who is to blame for these deaths. Launching rockets from densely populated areas.
- newspaper1 2y ago[flagged]
- gryzzly 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y agoAnyone can pick up a history book to see that I'm correct.
- Hikikomori 2y agoHow does bombing civilians stop rockets already launched? Most likely the person launching is already out of the area.
- gryzzly 2y agoThe whole thing of Hamas is embedding itself and its infrastructure in the civilian areas. If civilians are requested to evacuate, informed about the fact their houses are used by Hamas and the rocket launchers, rocket factories, tunnels and electric infrastructure to support all of that is going to be targeted, then perhaps it is not exactly fair to use words “bombing civilians” as a matter or fact?
- csmpltn 2y ago[flagged]
- codedokode 2y agoHezbollah is not a country though.
- csmpltn 2y agoHezbollah is operating from within Lebanon, and is deeply embedded into the government. Hezbollah is Lebanon’s responsibility.
- Hikikomori 2y ago[flagged]
- csmpltn 2y agoExactly! So if you choose to go to war with Israel the way Hamas and Hezbollah (Lebanon) did, you should also accept the consequences that follow… For example, get ready to have your entire military coms infrastructure blown up in a cyberattack. Why are we sitting here debating what’s a war crime and what isn’t, when Hezbollah (a designated guerrilla terrorist organization) deliberately chooses to go into war with Israel, and drag all of Lebanon into it?
- Hikikomori 2y ago[flagged]
- drawkward 2y agoThe difference is that the USA is going to get dragged into a regional war it has no business being in.
- y-curious 2y agoGotta protect our military base in the Middle Ea- oops, I meant our "greatest ally" in the Middle East!
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y agoThe difference is the target. Targeting non-combatants would make it terrorism. Hezbollah aren't non-combatants.
- pdyc 2y agoi am wondering what is state doing with parallel non state actor hezbollah? how is the lebanan state allowing non state actor to wage wars with foreign nations on its behalf?
- dtquad 2y agoIt's an intentional construct that benefits Hezbollah and Iran. Their Iranian funding has made them bigger and stronger than most nation-state armies but they can continue pretending to be a civilian Lebanese NGO with a strong political lobby in Brussels and Paris.
- lukan 2y agoSimple, it has no power to stop them. So allowing is not the right word here, accepting what they cannot change is more fitting.
- yuvalr1 2y agoOne reason might be this is directly targeting Hezbolla personnel, and does minimal collateral damage.
- pdabbadabba 2y agoI think it should not be considered terrorism to the extent that the attack targeted legitimate military targets during a time of war — broadly speaking, combatants and other parts of the organization that affect its ability to wage war. Terrorism, at least least in my view, is an attack that either intentionally targets civilians or is truly indiscriminate, and is aimed at producing political cha age by causing fear. By those definitions, I think this is clearly not terrorism. (Though we might learn more information about who was targeted that could change this assessment.) Admittedly, my definitions only imperfectly track the way the word is used in the west, but I think that's only due to frequent misuse of the term for political ends. I would worry about a definition of terrorism that creates an incentive to avoid this type of warfare in favor of dropping bombs.
- JohnMakin 2y ago[flagged]
- pliny 2y agoThe purpose is to injure enemy combatants
- nickff 2y agoIt seems like the purpose was to disable enemy combatants, and prevent those combatants from striking Israel; which would be a legitimate and targeted strike. Your phrasing makes it seems like the explosives were targeted at damaging the restaurants and stores (along with, perhaps all the occupants), which would not be a legitimate and targeted strike.
- JohnMakin 2y agoMy phrasing says exactly what it says - that this was indiscriminate. Do you think the IDF considered whether civilians would be harmed, or have a good possibility of being harmed? Surely blowing up thousands of devices in a major urban area would fall somewhere under this consideration.
- dtquad 2y agoThe militant/civilian fatality ratio was 11/2 yesterday.
- legitster 2y agoFrom Wikipedia: "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants." There's a lot of disagreement about the international definition of terrorism, but most seem to agree that it is specifically violence against non-combatants and outside the context of a declared military action.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- hackerlight 2y agoYou should start by outlining the definition of terrorism, but by that point it would be obvious it isn't terrorism and such a post would have been unnecessary.
- InDubioProRubio 2y ago[flagged]
- afavour 2y ago> As middle eastern societies proof unable to create complex institutions and states Pretty sure history proves that to be vastly incorrect. And the modern state of Middle Eastern countries is inseparable from the actions outside (both western and not) powers have undertaken there.
- InDubioProRubio 2y agoIt was like that before the west came in. The marines were formed because it was like that.
- afavour 2y agoTerrorism targets civilian populations. This operation, as described, targets Hezbollah militants. That feels like an oversimplification to me. Some of those devices have surely injured civilians. I think the question is how many. Broadly it's the same question that's plagued Israel's actions since last October: there will always be civilian casualties as a result of military action, but how many is too many?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- newspaper1 2y agoIf a bomb blew up next to me in a grocery store, even if I wasn't injured, I'd consider myself "targeted" and that the people who exploded it were my enemy. Imagine that actually happening while you were at Safeway.
- afavour 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y ago[flagged]
- givemedang 2y ago[flagged]
- newspaper1 2y ago[flagged]
- Horffupolde 2y agoYou were by definition not targeted. You are collateral damage.
- nradov 2y agoThe US Federal government uses the following definition: the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:2656f%20edition:prelim) https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...
- rtsil 2y agoAnd yet the same Federal government called the attack against USS Cole "terrorism" and its perpetrators "terrorists", and implemented a range of "anti-terrorism" measures in the Navy after that. And it was a military target, and all the victims were military. So really, terrorism is what people say is terrorism.
- gosub100 2y agoThe soldiers on the Cole were "non-combatant targets" , so the definition is consistent.
- anigbrowl 2y agoIt's really quite bizarre how official history sources unironically talk about a 'terrorist boat' inflicting a surprise attack on a 'destroyer'. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/uss-cole-bombing
- alex00 2y agoIt is terrorism. If Reuters is not calling it terrorism, it does not make it not terrorism.
- seydor 2y agoI think it is considered terrorism. Whoever did it, nobody would say that this attack makes military sense, lebanon is not at war, and civilians have died. But since IDF didn't do it, we ll never know who the terrorists are.
- yuvalr1 2y agoUnfortunately, you are seriously uninformed. Israel and Hezbolla are in active war for more than 11 months now. On a side note, I think people should strive to be more humble when they talk about issues they don't understand, or understand very little.
- seydor 2y agoeven though incidents happened on both sides, neither side has started an 'active war' against the other. plus, we don't know who tampered with those devices
- gizmondo 2y agoHezbollah has been firing rockets at Israel, how more active does it need to get? The notion that Israel just need to take it and can't go after the organization that conducts such attacks is absurd.
- ericmcer 2y agoIt would be terrorism if they celebrated the civilian casualties and wished there were more. If they could have executed this without a single civilian injury they definitely would have. I guess intent is what makes it terrorism vs war in my mind.
- balthigor 2y agoYes, they've shown such concern for civilian casualties up to the present time. Enormous, crushing, exploding, shooting deadly concern.
- CapricornNoble 2y ago> If they could have executed this without a single civilian injury they definitely would have. Why do you think that? Look at what the leadership of the Israel government is saying when they aren't placating western audiences / media outlets: Cabinet Member May Golan: "Proud of the ruins of Gaza" ( https://www.palestinechronicle.com/i-am-proud-of-the-ruins-of-gaza-israeli-minister-tells-knesset/ https://www.palestinechronicle.com/i-am-proud-of-the-ruins-o... ) Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich: Starving 2 million Gazans to death is right and moral but the world won't let us ( https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-05/ty-article/israeli-finance-minister-starving-gazans-to-death-may-be-moral-but-world-wont-let-us/00000191-22e1-dd23-a7dd-2aed4b050000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-08-05/ty-article/is... ) Minister of National Security Ben Gvir: We should tear down the Al-Aqsa Mosque and build a synagogue in its place ( https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240826-israel-minister-says-would-build-synagogue-at-flashpoint-jerusalem-site https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240826-israel-minist... )
- me_me_me 2y agoIts no surprise you get ever more right leaning politicians into the office. Israeli voters already tried the left dove approaches, resulting in suicide campaigns lasting over 100 days. It would be crazy to stick with carrot when you are only getting hit with a stick. The sad truth is political class of both sides has vested interest in prolonging the conflict. Especially Palestinians ruled by terrorist org openly proclaiming they are only interested in 'wiping the jews out'.
- onemoresoop 2y agoOn each side they think the others are the terrorists but the fact is that they're terrorizing each other and have lots of non-military casualties. I think of them as terrorists on both sides.
- ang_cire 2y agoTerrorism is just a label to describe attacks by people that powerful governments don't like. If you have enough military power, you're a legitimate government conducting a war (even if you're lobbing hundreds of missiles and drones into civilian targets like Russia is). If not, you're a terrorist org or government.
- bamboozled 2y ago[flagged]
- ang_cire 2y ago> Terrorism is targeting civilians to further a politician or ideological agenda. This is the old, pre- War on Terror definition. The definition of terrorism now, as used by most imperialist governments, is far less strict. https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism You will notice that the FBI's official definition of international terrorism doesn't mention either civilians or political goals at all: > International terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored). Their definition of domestic terrorism is likewise unbound from civilian targets entirely, and is not only about political goals, but "ideological" goals (which is in fact any goal, by definition, i.e. "something you desire to see/ believe should be achieved"): > Domestic terrorism: Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups to further ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as those of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature. Terrorism is now any act of violence that serves the goals of any group that is designated as "bad". The rest of your comment is just textbook Islamophobia.
- dang 2y agoYou've been breaking the site guidelines badly in this thread. Religious flamewar, in particular, is not welcome on HN. We ban accounts that post like this (or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41585013 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41585013), so please don't do that again. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
- bodhiandphysics 2y agoThe security council defines terrorism as "…criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism…" the crucial lines is "provoe a state of terror in the general public." That is to say, terrorism uses arbitrary violence in order to cause fear and panic leading to political goals. By contrast, the targets of this attack were directly against the personnel and leadership of a militarized organization currently in a shooting war with israel. The goal is not to instill terror in a population, but to directly target the capabilities of a military organization. Note that doesn't mean its not a war crime (I don't think it is but...)! It could still be a war crime for all sorts of reasons... it just means it's not terrorism.
- sofixa 2y ago> the crucial lines is "provoe a state of terror in the general public." That is to say, terrorism uses arbitrary violence in order to cause fear and panic leading to political goals. By contrast, the targets of this attack were directly against the personnel and leadership of a militarized organization currently in a shooting war with israel. The goal is not to instill terror in a population, but to directly target the capabilities of a military organization. Doesn't have to be arbitrary, and a highly precise targeted attack killing high commanders can still instill fear in the general population - if the most guarded guys can be killed, nobody is safe.
- bawolff 2y ago> If it's not terrorism, what is the differentiating factor(s)? Typically the differentiating factor is who the victims are and what the goal of the operation are - terrorists = victims are primarily civilian and the operation has negligible military benefit. Not terrorists = the targets are military. If there is collateral damage then it is not excessive (or not intended to be; intent matters) in relation to the military objective. All this is subjective of course, and politics are involved, but that is what the difference is usually given as. In this particular case - i would say it would be terrorism if it was random people's radios & pagers, but not terrorism if it was pagers/radios bought for military purpose that were primarily owned by soldiers. Initial reports suggest it is the latter, but i imagine more details will appear in time to better make that determination.
- maronato 2y ago"Terrorism" is one of the most useful terms for dehumanizing and delegitimizing a group's actions. It's only a useful term insofar as it's applied only to the enemy. Mental gymnastics will be in full force here and in the media/politics to recategorize it. I have no doubt a headline saying "Israeli politicians' hand-held radios explode, killing three, one day after pager blasts" would receive very different responses in this thread.
- maronato 2y agoAnd yes, politicians here is correct since > Hezbollah is a Lebanese Shia Islamist _political party_ and paramilitary group https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
- za3faran 2y agoIf you saw how many standing ovations Mileikowsky got last month in his speech the US congress, I think it is very clear.
- YeGoblynQueenne 2y agoI'm not convinced this was a terror attack and I think Israel is within its rights to target Hezbollah, but here's a question: If the assailant and target were reversed, would Western media hesitate at all to call it terrorism? Or, forget Hezbollah and Israel. If ISIS had detonated thousands of explosive devices all over, e.g., the UK injuring and killing hundreds of UK military personnel and some civilians, would that not immediately be condemned as an act of terror, by everyone in the entire world, East and West? And rightly so? If the designation of "terror" or "not terror" depends on who's attacking and whom they are targeting, then there's not much point in talking about terror or not terror at all.
- longbrass 2y agoIf the IDF were to detonate the rockets Hezbollah uses to explode before launch would this be different? What about gps devices or range finders? Without a doubt it’s asymmetrical… and the common binary is military/terror but I fear this is a distinction left to the last century. The loss of children is always unacceptable, but Hezbollah has a history of courting child soldiers… so skepticism is not unwarranted. https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/cscoal/2008/en/59071 https://www.refworld.org/reference/annualreport/cscoal/2008/...
- anigbrowl 2y agoMmmm... Hizbollah Hizbollah was the largest armed political group in the country with a base mainly in Shia areas. It said that it supported the country's ratification of the Optional Protocol in meetings with government officials.29 The group denied any use of children in the ongoing conflict with Israel, including the war of 2006.30 In 2007 there were reports that its military wing was recruiting boys aged 16-19. [...] The US military accepts recruits at age 17, so I think you're really stretching the definition of 'child soldiers' here. The report goes on to mention that Hezbollah organizes youth camps and suchlike, and in turn we could point out that ROTC accepts recruits aged 14 and up. While I would not say they're exactly alike, as someone who grew up outside the USA, this society is very militaristic compared to a lot of others. I was genuinely shocked when I discovered that US schoolchildren are expected to recite a pledge of allegiance every morning.
- numpad0 2y ago[flagged]
- dang 2y agoReligious and/or nationalistic flamewar will get you banned here. No more of this (or https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41583887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41583887) please. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- numpad0 2y agookay, I should have been more thoughtful with respect to that. Will stay away from these topics in the future.
- SergeAx 2y agoTerrorism, by definition, is directed against civilians. Hezbollah militants are not civilians. Hezbollah is recognized as a terrorist organization by US, EU, Canada and League of Arab States among others. The declared goal of Hezbollah is to fight US and Israel. Pagers and radios are used for their communication. That means that it is a military equipment.
- jaredklewis 2y ago> I'm genuinely curious where the line is drawn. I'm the opposite, in that I think it is incredibly uninteresting to obsess over semantics and try to neatly sort everything into a terrorism or non-terrorism box. Definitions are generally not universal and are inherently inexact. The definition will simply be stretched by the interpreting party to put things they do not morally approve of into the terrorism box and things they do approve of in the non-terrorism box. So I think it makes more sense to just skip that step and instead directly consider whether something is morally justified or not and to provide arguments of why or why not.
- hnpolicestate 2y ago"If it's not terrorism, what is the differentiating factor(s)?" The power structure in charge of labeling. What's the old saying? "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".
- deepfriedchokes 2y agoTerrorism is a matter of perspective. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Maybe we should all just try to treat others the way we want to be treated? That’s pretty much what that hippy Jewish philosopher guy said back in the day.
- dpc_01234 2y agoIt's terrorism if "they" are doing it, and not if "we" are doing it. That's actually the real practical definition used by everyone all over the world.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> how is this not considered terrorism on Israel's part? Terrorism is variously defined [1]. People are debating whether this was "random or indiscriminate nature" relative to other terrorist attacks. But relative to any wartime strike on an enemy capital, it's been highly precise. The reason it's open to intepretation is we don't know Israel's motivation. Is it to mark Hezbollah members? A prelude to a strategic strike? If so, it's not terrorism. If it's to scare Hezbollah and the Lebanese, on the other hand, it does start to look like terrorism. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
- aaron695 2y ago[dead]
- stuaxo 2y agoIndeed, it's against the Geneva Convention, and a 12 year old girl was hurt.
- TheAlchemist 2y agoFirst - from the 'technical' point of view - I can't wait to read books / documentaries about how it was all prepared etc. Fascinating. I can't really wrap my head around it neither, is it terrorism or not ? On one hand it sure is - we don't know if it was the main goal, but it sure did instil fear and terror. Even in people that have nothing to do with the region. On the other hand, it's pretty much as targeted as it gets. From what we know, the explosives were really small, installed in devices specifically used by their targets. I have hard time imagining any other way one could eliminate or incapacitate thousands of legimitate (in their view at least) targets without firing a single bullet and with so few other casualties (and yes, of course even a single one is too much).
- skynr 2y agoMy opinion - it is fully intended to invoke terror and destabilise the target community. Thus it is a terrorist act whether or not it falls under the rules of engagement of the perpetrator.
- hersko 2y agoWouldn't every offensive action in modern war fall into that category? Airstrikes, artillery, ground troops etc..
- shepherdjerred 2y agoIsn’t Israel targeting militants or those associated with a terrorist organization? I mean, maybe it meets the technical definition of terrorism, but at a certain point all military conflict becomes terrorism and the term becomes meaningless.
- drivingmenuts 2y agoThey’re not terrorists because they’re on a side we support. At worst, we might consider them rebels, though that’s usually reserved for people in this hemisphere.
- MxK234 2y agoIt's not terrorism, as Israel is targeting their enemies during war. Terrorism is targeting uninvolved civilians not during war. The Hezbollah attack that started this war was an act of terrorism. The Ukraine placing bombs in cities where the Russians are about to march in is not terrorism. Having that said: It would be better if the Hezbollah could be stopped by other less cruel means. But war is ugly. The Hezbollah has started it so Israel has all the right to defend themselves. Even if it's cruel.
- rldjbpin 2y agothis is very hard to defend considering the lack of consideration for collateral damage. however as already pointed out, even this happened in one instance, it all depends on which side you are on. being from a country that fought for its independence, we remember those who did the deed as "freedom fighters". during the time, from the "opressor's" point of view, however, they would have been seen as insurgents.
- bitcharmer 2y agoCriticism of Israel here on HN will only earn you down votes and flagging. It's not worth it.
- raxxorraxor 2y agoHezbollah is a militia, I think the goal of terrorism is to scare a civil population. Of course one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. But I would have problems to call Hezbollah anything of that sort. Hezbollahs goal is to destroy Israel, so I wouldn't call any military action against them terrorism. They have a right to defend themselves and that right does include these tactics.
- Dove 2y agoWhile I don't want to get involved in a political and radioactive topic (and don't intend to participate in an ongoing discussion), it seems to me there is something important to be said here. To my mind, there are two critical moral differences between war and terrorism. The first is that the soldier attacks those who are fighting him - if not exactly the guilty, at least the active and resistant. The terrorist doesn't care if he attacks the weak and innocent and in fact prefers it. The second is that the object of a soldier's attack is to break the resistance, and he minimizes evil and suffering in pursuit of that goal. The terrorist maximizes it as a point of strategy. Of course, fighting is sometimes necessary - evil must be resisted or it will dominate the earth. And in a messy real world, fighting often unavoidably hurts the innocent and the uninvolved - or even the involved in unnecessary ways. The desire to do things perfectly has to at some point yield to the need to do something - insisting that only perfect actions be taken is the same as saying no actions can be taken. So what makes a fighting action moral? There isn't a bright line. At the margins, this is a judgement call. What level of violence, of what sort, is acceptable is something good people will have differing opinions on. But to suggest that the existence of a spectrum and the necessity of exercising judgement erases the categories is to commit the beard fallacy. The fact that we cannot say exactly when stubble becomes a beard does not mean there is no such thing as a beard - it just means the edges of the definition are fuzzy. That's actually normal! Most definitions have fuzzy edges, and have weak meaning on those edges. If one person wants a clean shaven man for some purpose and another wants a bearded man, both may consider a week old shave unacceptable for their purposes. Definitional edges have their interests, but don't necessarily inform how we think about centers. Most ethics in war and in fighting turn on these ideas of innocence or powerlessness and necessity. Soldiers take prisoners (and treat them well) because taking someone out of the conflict is the honorable goal of war, and causing suffering once that is accomplished is evil. Criminals in prison (should) still have human rights for the same reason. I once heard a federal law enforcement official describe a shootout with a criminal, stating that the criminal was shooting at him and didn't care who else he hit, while the LEO was unwilling to return fire against the backstop of an occupied apartment building because that would be evil. It does cost something to do things right - you pay for it in the blood of your own soldiers and in your chances of victory. One reason to seek an overwhelming force is to have the luxury of doing things as cleanly as possible. In a more even fight, at higher stakes, necessity may look different. People do take capabilities and circumstances into account when they judge you. Nonetheless, there is a very big difference between doing the right thing imperfectly or even badly and doing the wrong thing. There are matters of degree between going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and accepting more of them. That does not mean intentionally targeting civilians exists on that spectrum. That's crossing an entirely different line. On a personal level, in a self defense scenario, you can be taking actions to stop a threat or to hurt a person. The first is moral and legal; the second is immoral and illegal. And while you sometimes do the second in the course of doing the first, the minute you are doing it for its own sake, you are over the line. While we may disagree over where exactly the line is, that doesn't mean you can put it anywhere you find convenient. There is a moral truth to the situation. Every criminal says they're acting in self defense through some twisted line of reasoning. And every terrorist can tell you why their targets are legitimate and their actions necessary. It is entirely possible to argue along such lines and to be wrong. Further down the thread, someone argues that targeting civilians is justified when those civilians vote for the government you are fighting. This is an example of careless moral reasoning that seeks to justify evil - you cannot know who voted how, and we do not kill people for how they vote or we find ourselves in the position of killing huge numbers of people. This is a thin justification for violence as a goal in itself. Likewise, someone argues that targeting the innocent is justifiable in a very asymmetric conflict. Again, this is a very thin justification. It is true that you are judged by the precision of your weapons and the options available to you, but a tenuous relationship to some strategic advantage doesn't justify egregious and pointless violence. At some point, it starts to look like the violence is the point to you and you're just evil. These lines of argument highlight why I feel the need to respond. This erasing of the line between war and terrorism, which has apparently happened in the minds of a lot of people here, has an effect that is doubly harmful. It has the effect of hampering necessary and legitimate war by miring it in endless criticism and confusion about legitimacy. This is bad - when we fight evil, we need to be able to have intelligent conversations about how to acceptably do it. Overly hampering our capabilities helps evil be a little more dominant - keeps the bad guys a little more in control on the margins. Calling war terrorism commits this evil. But perhaps a worse evil is committed by calling terrorism war - it has the effect of justifying it! There are people in this thread who think that targeting voters and children is okay because they are confused about the concepts of innocence and necessity and in their confusion are incapable of intelligently evaluating reasoning that involves those concepts. It is not a great leap between finding terrorism morally acceptable and being willing to support it. The ethics and morals of violent conflict - whether writ small between individuals or writ large between nations - have been a topic of discussion for all of civilization. While we don't always agree, a lot of important, intelligent, moral things have been said on the topic - things worth learning. We have concepts like war crime and terrorism for reasons. Contrary to (apparent) popular belief, there are not merely ugly sounds, linguistic weapons wielded for power. They are important and specific ideas, given to us by generations of thinkers, that help us distinguish between good and evil and understand the moral meaning of things. You erase those in your own mind at the risk of supporting and committing atrocities. It is important to know when the price of winning morally obligates you to lose, and when the price of losing morally obligates you to win. The ability to tell the difference comes, not from erasing lines, but learning how they are drawn and why.
- gloosx 2y agoIf you consider it a terrorism, it is it, and it's up to you to decide. Most modern countries terrorize people by design, because they can use the 51% illusion to justify any of their actions. They also use the same illusion to teach you what's terrorism and what's patriotism, and they will for sure try to teach you young — if they don't, it will be kinda hard to distinguish later on
- me_me_me 2y agoThe real question I never see being asked is how a country lets a terrorist org operate to such a degree in their country befrore you can assume they are letting them operate. A terrorist org having their own ammo depo is probably a hint. Lets then transplant the example to other ground lets say Poland lets a terrorist group operate within its borders and that terrorists org regularly sends rockets over to Germany. What do you think Germany is suppose to do? Ask Poland to deal with an org that they openly support, and openly allow to attack Germany?