15 ms·

I think it should not be considered terrorism to the extent that the attack targeted legitimate military targets during a time of war — broadly speaking, combat

I 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 ago
  The purpose is to injure enemy combatants
- nickff 2y ago
  It 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 ago
    My 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.
    - varjag 2y ago
      There is no law or custom of war that prohibits fighting in urban areas.
      - Daviey 2y ago
        Except, Rule 15:\ “In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. 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.”* *Provisions common to the territories of the Parties to the conflict and to occupied territories - Article 27* “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.” *Article 51 - Protection of the civilian population* “1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.” *Article 48 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977):* “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    People misconstrue (naively or purposefully) what it means to target as opposed to collateral damage.
  - lukan 2y ago
    Hezbollah has a political arm, and a military one. Both were targeted, but only the latter consists of combatants.
    - XajniN 2y ago
      And they are both parts of a terrorist organization.
      - lukan 2y ago
        The european union for example, only considers the military wing a terror organisation. And the claim above was that only combatants were targeted, which is wrong, even if the political wing would be universally considered a terror organisation. The term combatant is clearly defined.
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    Come off it, the design of an attack like this is absolutely designed to instil fear in the general populace as well as injure the people carrying the electronic devices. If something similar happened in a military base or a military administrative office, sure. But if you're setting off thousands of explosions in commercial and residential districts assurances that none of the bystanders need to worry about it are meaningless.
- jnwatson 2y ago
  As attacks go, this is far more targeted than most dropped bombs. The purpose is to disable the communication infrastructure. That's a valid military target. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. It does seem to fit within the rules of war though.
  - cjbprime 2y ago
    I don't think it's reasonable to say that the purpose was to disable those electronic devices. The devices were compromised and modified to include explosives. They could have been modified with a remote kill-switch that destroyed the device without causing a large explosion. The purpose of the explosion was to injure humans, not to make devices inoperable.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    The rules of war prohibit planting explosive in objects which are likely to be picked up by civilians. The rules of war also discourages fighting in civilian areas. Members of an enemy organization are not automatically valid military targets according to the rules of war. Especially when they are just going about their civilian lives far away from the battlefield. This is attack consistent with terrorist tactics, not warfare.
    - meepmorp 2y ago
      > The rules of war prohibit planting explosive in objects which are likely to be picked up by civilians. Yes, and? They didn't just leave a bunch of attractive nuisance bombs all over Lebanon; they specifically targeted devices provided by Hezbollah to coordinate activities which were meant to be carried around on their persons. That seems like the opposite of leaving them where civilians might pick them up.
      - JohnMakin 2y ago
        Man if only we didn’t live in a global society where carrying electronic communication devices in non-combatant (aka civilian) settings was the norm, you’d maybe have a point here. Multiple children have been reported as killed. Do you think that may fall under the category of “indiscriminate?”
beloch 2y ago
[flagged]
helpfulContrib 2y ago
[flagged]
- apelapan 2y ago
  Not wearing a uniform when you participate in war doesn't make you an illegitimate target, it makes you an illegal combatant.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > it makes you an illegal combatant Technically yes. Unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant is more accurate. It isn't illegal for a soldier to not wear a uniform. It just means the Geneva Conventions don't apply.
    - mrkstu 2y ago
      It also means you're the one responsible for the bystander deaths inflicted when its necessary to use unconventional means to target you.
- t0mas88 2y ago
  > Wearing a uniform and identifying yourself as a soldier of the state fielding a military is the only way to identify an individual as a legitimate target That was a long time ago. The traditional international laws for armed conflict also make it illegal to wear civilian clothes as a combatant. The problem with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that they're not state armies, often don't wear a clear uniform, but they do launch rockets and wage war. You can't really claim that people in civilian clothes launching rockets at a neighbouring country are not targets.
- HDThoreaun 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - anigbrowl 2y ago
    They do, and have done so since the 1990s. You would know this even if from US TV news if you paid attention. I cannot help but wonder how many people's 'knowledge' of Hezbollah is based on pundits and the occasional movie with random 'terrorists' shouting in Arabic. They are not part of the regular Lebanese army, but they are a straight up military force. The most obvious parallel I can think of would be the US Marines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_armed_strength https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_armed_strength
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
sim7c00 2y ago
[flagged]
113 2y ago
> legitimate military targets during a time of war Israel and Lebanon are not at war.
- lelanthran 2y ago
  > Israel and Lebanon are not at war. Maybe not, but the combatants holding those devices were at war, no?
  - shprd 2y ago
    > but the combatants holding those devices were at war, no? The attack wasn't as targeted as you seem to think. It also hit health workers and bystanders. Approx half the casualties are civilians (including children). According to Humans rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers... > Thousands of pagers simultaneously exploded across Lebanon and parts of Syria on September 17, 2024, resulting in at least 12 deaths, including at least two children and two health workers, and at least 2,800 injuries, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health.
    - lelanthran 2y ago
      > Approx half the casualties are civilians Citation needed for that. None of the news reports, even the heavily biased ones, have reported mass civilian casualties.
      - bordercases 2y ago
        How many children do you expect to be combatants?
      - shprd 2y ago
        The citation, as requested: "two children and four health workers in a hospital in southern Beirut were among the 12 people who were killed on Tuesday." - Public Health Minister Firas Abiad in a press conference So that's 50% of those killed, right? and that's just health workers and children (who were 8 and 11 years old, btw). Also, there were multiple footage of the devices exploding among civilians in dense markets and grocery stores, so the percentage of civilians injured might be even higher. I expect more detailed reports will be shared over the next few days about the total casualty.
abalone 2y ago
According to the LA Times these devices are “not usually used by fighters, but by ambulance and civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah. The devices are unrestricted and can be sold to anyone, and as such are used by other organizations in areas of poor signal.” [1] There is no question if an enemy set off hundreds of bombs in American ambulances we would recognize it as a mass terrorist attack. [1] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-09-18/second-wave-of-device-explosions-rocks-lebanon https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-09-18/second...
- pdabbadabba 2y ago
  I agree that if it is confirmed that these are primarily used by civilian ambulance crews, that would make a big difference. Of course, this isn't what the LA Times actually reported, but I'm not sure what "civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah" actually means on the ground.
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    > Of course, this isn't what the LA Times actually reported This is a good point. The LA Times does not report incidents involving ambulances other than in the first half of the sentence that you quoted: >They are not usually used by fighters, but by ambulance and civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah. And the report of a video of an ambulance exploding > Video from a funeral ceremony in the country’s south depicted an explosion inside an ambulance, leading bystanders to run away in panic.
    - stogot 2y ago
      So someone extrapolated one video to making an “usually” argument? Without a source or data this is poor journalism
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- 2y ago
IOT_Apprentice 2y ago
[flagged]
- EasyMark 2y ago
  But there are always innocent bystanders killed in war? They are directly targeting Hezbollah members. It sounds like that might not be the case with these radios though, it seems like a much weaker case than with the pagers.
DSingularity 2y ago
It’s obviously a terrorism strike.
gorjusborg 2y ago
I don't see how anyone can claim that the remote detonation of explosive devices hidden inside everyday devices can be called an operation against 'legitimate military targets'. There's no way to know that 4000 devices are going to only harm their 'owner'. Call it whatever you want, but these attacks are not responsible nor 'in the right'. This sort of tactic is reckless and evil.
- reddozen 2y ago
  Sure you can hold that opinion but Volume II, Chapter 1, Section F of Customary International Humanitarian Law[1] strictly disagrees with you. [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
  - bbqfog 2y ago
    It directly calls out Israel for its attacks against civilians in Lebanon: > "Similarly, the UN Security Council has condemned or called for an end to alleged attacks against civilians in the context of numerous conflicts, both international and non-international, including in Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Georgia, Lebanon, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslavia and the territories occupied by Israel."
    - yellowapple 2y ago
      That sentence doesn't "directly" call out Israel specifically for any attacks against civilians in Lebanon. It just calls out attacks against civilians in Lebanon - which yes, would include attacks by Israel, but would also include attacks by Lebanese militant groups, including Hezbollah (i.e. in the course of the various internal conflicts there). It would also implicitly apply to attacks wherein civilians were actually the target; expecting military operations to have zero civilian collateral casualties is unrealistic. This exploding pager/radio attack seems to have been targeted at militants specifically, not civilians.
      - 2y ago

JohnMakin 2y ago

[flagged]

pliny 2y ago
The purpose is to injure enemy combatants
nickff 2y ago
It 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 ago
  My 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.
  - varjag 2y ago
    There is no law or custom of war that prohibits fighting in urban areas.
    - Daviey 2y ago
      Except, Rule 15:\ “In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. 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.”* *Provisions common to the territories of the Parties to the conflict and to occupied territories - Article 27* “Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.” *Article 51 - Protection of the civilian population* “1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances. 2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited. 3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. 5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited. 7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations. 8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.” *Article 48 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977):* “In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.”
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  People misconstrue (naively or purposefully) what it means to target as opposed to collateral damage.
- lukan 2y ago
  Hezbollah has a political arm, and a military one. Both were targeted, but only the latter consists of combatants.
  - XajniN 2y ago
    And they are both parts of a terrorist organization.
    - lukan 2y ago
      The european union for example, only considers the military wing a terror organisation. And the claim above was that only combatants were targeted, which is wrong, even if the political wing would be universally considered a terror organisation. The term combatant is clearly defined.
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  Come off it, the design of an attack like this is absolutely designed to instil fear in the general populace as well as injure the people carrying the electronic devices. If something similar happened in a military base or a military administrative office, sure. But if you're setting off thousands of explosions in commercial and residential districts assurances that none of the bystanders need to worry about it are meaningless.
jnwatson 2y ago
As attacks go, this is far more targeted than most dropped bombs. The purpose is to disable the communication infrastructure. That's a valid military target. To be clear, I'm not saying this is a good thing. It does seem to fit within the rules of war though.
- cjbprime 2y ago
  I don't think it's reasonable to say that the purpose was to disable those electronic devices. The devices were compromised and modified to include explosives. They could have been modified with a remote kill-switch that destroyed the device without causing a large explosion. The purpose of the explosion was to injure humans, not to make devices inoperable.
- runarberg 2y ago
  The rules of war prohibit planting explosive in objects which are likely to be picked up by civilians. The rules of war also discourages fighting in civilian areas. Members of an enemy organization are not automatically valid military targets according to the rules of war. Especially when they are just going about their civilian lives far away from the battlefield. This is attack consistent with terrorist tactics, not warfare.
  - meepmorp 2y ago
    > The rules of war prohibit planting explosive in objects which are likely to be picked up by civilians. Yes, and? They didn't just leave a bunch of attractive nuisance bombs all over Lebanon; they specifically targeted devices provided by Hezbollah to coordinate activities which were meant to be carried around on their persons. That seems like the opposite of leaving them where civilians might pick them up.
    - JohnMakin 2y ago
      Man if only we didn’t live in a global society where carrying electronic communication devices in non-combatant (aka civilian) settings was the norm, you’d maybe have a point here. Multiple children have been reported as killed. Do you think that may fall under the category of “indiscriminate?”

beloch 2y ago

[flagged]

helpfulContrib 2y ago

[flagged]

apelapan 2y ago
Not wearing a uniform when you participate in war doesn't make you an illegitimate target, it makes you an illegal combatant.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > it makes you an illegal combatant Technically yes. Unlawful combatant or unprivileged combatant is more accurate. It isn't illegal for a soldier to not wear a uniform. It just means the Geneva Conventions don't apply.
  - mrkstu 2y ago
    It also means you're the one responsible for the bystander deaths inflicted when its necessary to use unconventional means to target you.
t0mas88 2y ago
> Wearing a uniform and identifying yourself as a soldier of the state fielding a military is the only way to identify an individual as a legitimate target That was a long time ago. The traditional international laws for armed conflict also make it illegal to wear civilian clothes as a combatant. The problem with organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah is that they're not state armies, often don't wear a clear uniform, but they do launch rockets and wage war. You can't really claim that people in civilian clothes launching rockets at a neighbouring country are not targets.
HDThoreaun 2y ago
[flagged]
- anigbrowl 2y ago
  They do, and have done so since the 1990s. You would know this even if from US TV news if you paid attention. I cannot help but wonder how many people's 'knowledge' of Hezbollah is based on pundits and the occasional movie with random 'terrorists' shouting in Arabic. They are not part of the regular Lebanese army, but they are a straight up military force. The most obvious parallel I can think of would be the US Marines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_armed_strength https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah_armed_strength

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

sim7c00 2y ago

[flagged]

113 2y ago

> legitimate military targets during a time of war Israel and Lebanon are not at war.

lelanthran 2y ago
> Israel and Lebanon are not at war. Maybe not, but the combatants holding those devices were at war, no?
- shprd 2y ago
  > but the combatants holding those devices were at war, no? The attack wasn't as targeted as you seem to think. It also hit health workers and bystanders. Approx half the casualties are civilians (including children). According to Humans rights watch: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers... > Thousands of pagers simultaneously exploded across Lebanon and parts of Syria on September 17, 2024, resulting in at least 12 deaths, including at least two children and two health workers, and at least 2,800 injuries, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health.
  - lelanthran 2y ago
    > Approx half the casualties are civilians Citation needed for that. None of the news reports, even the heavily biased ones, have reported mass civilian casualties.
    - bordercases 2y ago
      How many children do you expect to be combatants?
    - shprd 2y ago
      The citation, as requested: "two children and four health workers in a hospital in southern Beirut were among the 12 people who were killed on Tuesday." - Public Health Minister Firas Abiad in a press conference So that's 50% of those killed, right? and that's just health workers and children (who were 8 and 11 years old, btw). Also, there were multiple footage of the devices exploding among civilians in dense markets and grocery stores, so the percentage of civilians injured might be even higher. I expect more detailed reports will be shared over the next few days about the total casualty.

abalone 2y ago

According to the LA Times these devices are “not usually used by fighters, but by ambulance and civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah. The devices are unrestricted and can be sold to anyone, and as such are used by other organizations in areas of poor signal.” [1] There is no question if an enemy set off hundreds of bombs in American ambulances we would recognize it as a mass terrorist attack. [1] https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-09-18/second-wave-of-device-explosions-rocks-lebanon https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-09-18/second...

pdabbadabba 2y ago
I agree that if it is confirmed that these are primarily used by civilian ambulance crews, that would make a big difference. Of course, this isn't what the LA Times actually reported, but I'm not sure what "civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah" actually means on the ground.
- jrflowers 2y ago
  > Of course, this isn't what the LA Times actually reported This is a good point. The LA Times does not report incidents involving ambulances other than in the first half of the sentence that you quoted: >They are not usually used by fighters, but by ambulance and civil defense crews and administrators affiliated with Hezbollah. And the report of a video of an ambulance exploding > Video from a funeral ceremony in the country’s south depicted an explosion inside an ambulance, leading bystanders to run away in panic.
  - stogot 2y ago
    So someone extrapolated one video to making an “usually” argument? Without a source or data this is poor journalism
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
2y ago

IOT_Apprentice 2y ago

[flagged]

EasyMark 2y ago
But there are always innocent bystanders killed in war? They are directly targeting Hezbollah members. It sounds like that might not be the case with these radios though, it seems like a much weaker case than with the pagers.

DSingularity 2y ago

It’s obviously a terrorism strike.

gorjusborg 2y ago

I don't see how anyone can claim that the remote detonation of explosive devices hidden inside everyday devices can be called an operation against 'legitimate military targets'. There's no way to know that 4000 devices are going to only harm their 'owner'. Call it whatever you want, but these attacks are not responsible nor 'in the right'. This sort of tactic is reckless and evil.

reddozen 2y ago
Sure you can hold that opinion but Volume II, Chapter 1, Section F of Customary International Humanitarian Law[1] strictly disagrees with you. [1] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
- bbqfog 2y ago
  It directly calls out Israel for its attacks against civilians in Lebanon: > "Similarly, the UN Security Council has condemned or called for an end to alleged attacks against civilians in the context of numerous conflicts, both international and non-international, including in Afghanistan, Angola, Azerbaijan, Burundi, Georgia, Lebanon, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan, the former Yugoslavia and the territories occupied by Israel."
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    That sentence doesn't "directly" call out Israel specifically for any attacks against civilians in Lebanon. It just calls out attacks against civilians in Lebanon - which yes, would include attacks by Israel, but would also include attacks by Lebanese militant groups, including Hezbollah (i.e. in the course of the various internal conflicts there). It would also implicitly apply to attacks wherein civilians were actually the target; expecting military operations to have zero civilian collateral casualties is unrealistic. This exploding pager/radio attack seems to have been targeted at militants specifically, not civilians.
    - 2y ago