5 ms·

> Our militaries wear uniforms, and our weapons of war are clearly marked as such because our societies operate on trust. As long as we don’t see uniformed sol

by htrp 2y ago

> Our militaries wear uniforms, and our weapons of war are clearly marked as such because our societies operate on trust. As long as we don’t see uniformed soldiers marching through our streets, we can assume that the front lines of armed conflict are far from home. When enemies violate that trust, we call it terrorism, because we no longer feel safe around everyday people and objects.

morkalork 2y ago
Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market.
- r00fus 2y ago
  I think we could all agree that we shouldn't be sending billions of dollars to a country that uses the same tactics or worse than a militia. Of course, unless you think state-sponsored terrorism is a good thing, or that it actually works to "fight fire with fire" (hint: fighting fire with water is far more effective).
  - loumaciel 2y ago
    In this analogy, what is water in the real world?
    - r00fus 2y ago
      Negotiations and treaties.
      - scoofy 2y ago
        We are talking about warfare here. Warfare is what happens when negotiations and treaties fail. War is horrible, but it's sometimes the optimal strategy for independent actors to achieve their objectives. War is based in basic game-theory.
        r00fus 2y ago
        > Warfare is what happens when negotiations and treaties fail. In the case of Israel, they are intentionally failing the negotiation part as they commit an active genocide. Their motto has always been "do 10x to your enemy as they've done to you" and at some point it completely fails. Most other nations don't get this fanatical.
        scoofy 2y ago
        If you're going to clutch pearls about literal war you're missing the point. Anything goes in war... that's the point. The concept of "war crimes" are, again, just part of game-theoretic calculations that agents make when they are deciding what lengths they are willing to go to in order to achieve their goals. People think war has rules because most wars on television are completely lopsided affairs. Arguable genocides in war are extremely common in war, and are probably the rule, not the exception. In recent years we've effectively seen an equivalent in the Sri Lankan Civil War, DRC, Darfur, Burma, I could go on. War is fucking terrible, and people should take every reasonable avenue to avoid them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  Or hotel: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing> Power organises. Subordinated peoples attack that organisation, and it has long been this way. Power, of course, resents that tactic. In large part because it is effective.
  - edanm 2y ago
    Do you really think something from 1946, before the current state of Israel was even founded, is really relevant in this discussion? If we judged every country based on its 1946 behavior, we'd have to write off pretty much everyone.
    - dredmorbius 2y ago
      Yes. Most particularly given the responses made to similar methods used currently against the party which had executed KDH, as it turns out that there is in fact precedent. The personnel in the KDH event are significant both historically and politically, one later serving as head of state. And I find most people are entirely unaware of the incident, as I was until the past decade or so. (That's "recent" for me.) I don't recall the specific inspiration for my search in which I'd learned of the event, but I think it was simply looking for what the first modern use of terrorist-type explosive attacks was. There are of course many earlier instances, and the notion of the bomb-throwing anarchist is reduced to cliche. But in terms of a significant planned attack intended to inflict mass casualties against an asymmetric foe, the KDH instance is an exemplar. As I've said in several recent comments on pager/radio threads, I'm not a partisan to either side, I both condemn actions taken by both, and have a deep sympathy for uninvolved civilians (which is not, of course, all civilians). What I do believe is that a deep understanding is best served by a realistic view, understanding that most hats are at best grey, and that there's more history than many people are aware of. I'm trying to help spread that awareness.
      - edanm 2y ago
        I have no complaint with the idea of spreading more awareness, and think that's a good thing. That said, you were specifically responding to this comment: > Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market. My point was that this is long enough ago, and before Israel was even founded, so bringing it up as a counter-example of Israeli behavior, which is what you seemed to do, is very fraught. Israel didn't even exist at that time!
dotancohen 2y ago
What trust do you feel was violated? Hezbollah just two months ago shot a rocket into a football field, killing 12 Israeli children. Is children's trust that the football field is a safe place not violated now?
- tmnvix 2y ago
  > Hezbollah just two months ago shot a rocket into a football field, killing 12 Israeli children. This is far from confirmed and is effectively just an opinion (not that children were killed, but that Hezbollah was responsible).
  - dotancohen 2y ago
    What are you talking about? It is well established that Hezbollah shot the missile. They bragged about it in their Telegram channels (I just happened to be reading the Gaza Now channel when they reposted it, I don't read the Hezbollah channels), and the direction and the debris are conclusive. The only reason to sow doubt is to protect these monsters. I think that you should really revaluate your reasons for protecting Hezbollah's reputation. Even the Lebanese hate them and want them out of their country.
    - test098 2y ago
      > It is well established that Hezbollah shot the missile. They bragged about it in their Telegram channels > I don't read the Hezbollah channels ok... [1] > The only reason to sow doubt is to protect these monsters. i personally dispute misinformation because, well, it's misinformation and it's used by state actors to escalate violence. [2] --- [1] "Hezbollah, the most powerful paramilitary and political force in Lebanon, was quick to say it was not behind the attack, a rare denial from a group that normally claims every attack launched." [2] "With Israel vowing retaliation for what was the highest civilian death toll in Israel-held territory since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, diplomats rushed to prevent an escalation that could spiral into an all-out war after months of exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah over the Lebanese-Israeli border." source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4 https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocke...
edanm 2y ago
This line jumped out at me too. Because this is the perspective of someone for whom the war really is far removed. But it's emphatically not most Israeli's perspective. Israelis are very much in the front lines of this - around 80k Israelis have literally had to abandon their homes are internally displaced, because the North of Israel is under rocket attacks from Hezbollah every day for the last 11 months. Cities have been partially destroyed, and fires have raged across the North. And if a wider war with Hezbollah happens, most likely all of Israel will be under immediate fire. So this perspective of "trust" that the author talks about does not, at all, exist between Israel and Hezbollah. Which is why Hezbollah are designated a terrorist organization among so many countries. > The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. For the US that is maybe, maybe, true. But for Israel that is absolutely not true. The reason Hezbollah doesn't do this kind of thing is because they can't. But they have been doing things they can do, like shooting rockets, and they have also tried to cause terror attacks inside of Israel.
- TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
  Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity.
  - edanm 2y ago
    First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).

by htrp 2y ago

morkalork 2y ago

Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market.

r00fus 2y ago
I think we could all agree that we shouldn't be sending billions of dollars to a country that uses the same tactics or worse than a militia. Of course, unless you think state-sponsored terrorism is a good thing, or that it actually works to "fight fire with fire" (hint: fighting fire with water is far more effective).
- loumaciel 2y ago
  In this analogy, what is water in the real world?
  - r00fus 2y ago
    Negotiations and treaties.
    - scoofy 2y ago
      We are talking about warfare here. Warfare is what happens when negotiations and treaties fail. War is horrible, but it's sometimes the optimal strategy for independent actors to achieve their objectives. War is based in basic game-theory.
      - r00fus 2y ago
        > Warfare is what happens when negotiations and treaties fail. In the case of Israel, they are intentionally failing the negotiation part as they commit an active genocide. Their motto has always been "do 10x to your enemy as they've done to you" and at some point it completely fails. Most other nations don't get this fanatical.
        scoofy 2y ago
        If you're going to clutch pearls about literal war you're missing the point. Anything goes in war... that's the point. The concept of "war crimes" are, again, just part of game-theoretic calculations that agents make when they are deciding what lengths they are willing to go to in order to achieve their goals. People think war has rules because most wars on television are completely lopsided affairs. Arguable genocides in war are extremely common in war, and are probably the rule, not the exception. In recent years we've effectively seen an equivalent in the Sri Lankan Civil War, DRC, Darfur, Burma, I could go on. War is fucking terrible, and people should take every reasonable avenue to avoid them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dredmorbius 2y ago
Or hotel: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing> Power organises. Subordinated peoples attack that organisation, and it has long been this way. Power, of course, resents that tactic. In large part because it is effective.
- edanm 2y ago
  Do you really think something from 1946, before the current state of Israel was even founded, is really relevant in this discussion? If we judged every country based on its 1946 behavior, we'd have to write off pretty much everyone.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    Yes. Most particularly given the responses made to similar methods used currently against the party which had executed KDH, as it turns out that there is in fact precedent. The personnel in the KDH event are significant both historically and politically, one later serving as head of state. And I find most people are entirely unaware of the incident, as I was until the past decade or so. (That's "recent" for me.) I don't recall the specific inspiration for my search in which I'd learned of the event, but I think it was simply looking for what the first modern use of terrorist-type explosive attacks was. There are of course many earlier instances, and the notion of the bomb-throwing anarchist is reduced to cliche. But in terms of a significant planned attack intended to inflict mass casualties against an asymmetric foe, the KDH instance is an exemplar. As I've said in several recent comments on pager/radio threads, I'm not a partisan to either side, I both condemn actions taken by both, and have a deep sympathy for uninvolved civilians (which is not, of course, all civilians). What I do believe is that a deep understanding is best served by a realistic view, understanding that most hats are at best grey, and that there's more history than many people are aware of. I'm trying to help spread that awareness.
    - edanm 2y ago
      I have no complaint with the idea of spreading more awareness, and think that's a good thing. That said, you were specifically responding to this comment: > Too bad militants don't really follow those same rules regarding uniforms etc. Trust was lost long ago, before even the first suicide bomber wearing civilian clothes set themselves off in a crowded market. My point was that this is long enough ago, and before Israel was even founded, so bringing it up as a counter-example of Israeli behavior, which is what you seemed to do, is very fraught. Israel didn't even exist at that time!

dotancohen 2y ago

What trust do you feel was violated? Hezbollah just two months ago shot a rocket into a football field, killing 12 Israeli children. Is children's trust that the football field is a safe place not violated now?

tmnvix 2y ago
> Hezbollah just two months ago shot a rocket into a football field, killing 12 Israeli children. This is far from confirmed and is effectively just an opinion (not that children were killed, but that Hezbollah was responsible).
- dotancohen 2y ago
  What are you talking about? It is well established that Hezbollah shot the missile. They bragged about it in their Telegram channels (I just happened to be reading the Gaza Now channel when they reposted it, I don't read the Hezbollah channels), and the direction and the debris are conclusive. The only reason to sow doubt is to protect these monsters. I think that you should really revaluate your reasons for protecting Hezbollah's reputation. Even the Lebanese hate them and want them out of their country.
  - test098 2y ago
    > It is well established that Hezbollah shot the missile. They bragged about it in their Telegram channels > I don't read the Hezbollah channels ok... [1] > The only reason to sow doubt is to protect these monsters. i personally dispute misinformation because, well, it's misinformation and it's used by state actors to escalate violence. [2] --- [1] "Hezbollah, the most powerful paramilitary and political force in Lebanon, was quick to say it was not behind the attack, a rare denial from a group that normally claims every attack launched." [2] "With Israel vowing retaliation for what was the highest civilian death toll in Israel-held territory since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on southern Israel, diplomats rushed to prevent an escalation that could spiral into an all-out war after months of exchanges between Israel and Hezbollah over the Lebanese-Israeli border." source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocket-hezbollah-explained-97d4377713a209cf130b7b0f3476e1c4 https://apnews.com/article/israel-golan-heights-soccer-rocke...

edanm 2y ago

This line jumped out at me too. Because this is the perspective of someone for whom the war really is far removed. But it's emphatically not most Israeli's perspective. Israelis are very much in the front lines of this - around 80k Israelis have literally had to abandon their homes are internally displaced, because the North of Israel is under rocket attacks from Hezbollah every day for the last 11 months. Cities have been partially destroyed, and fires have raged across the North. And if a wider war with Hezbollah happens, most likely all of Israel will be under immediate fire. So this perspective of "trust" that the author talks about does not, at all, exist between Israel and Hezbollah. Which is why Hezbollah are designated a terrorist organization among so many countries. > The reason we don’t see exploding battery attacks more often is not because it’s technically hard, it’s because the erosion of public trust in everyday things isn’t worth it. For the US that is maybe, maybe, true. But for Israel that is absolutely not true. The reason Hezbollah doesn't do this kind of thing is because they can't. But they have been doing things they can do, like shooting rockets, and they have also tried to cause terror attacks inside of Israel.

TazeTSchnitzel 2y ago
Can most Israelis remember true peacetime? The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity.
- edanm 2y ago
  First, no - most Israelis have never lived under true peacetime. I do think there's a difference between the relatively peaceful times though, and the current situation, for all parties. > The Israelis have chosen to maintain a continuous military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza for almost six decades, rather than integrating them or letting them be independent, which locks the region in permanent conflict of varying levels of intensity. You seem to imply that all the blame for the region having conflict is the occupation, which is... not quite true. Israel was founded and immediately attacked, and was attacked several more times before the military occupation; one major reason the occupation even happened in the first place was because Israel feared further attacks from neighboring countries, and wanted more of a buffer. Look, I'm no fan of the occupation, to put it mildly (very mildly). But it's not the whole reason for the conflict. And more importantly, it's not just Israel "choosing" a military occupation instead of "letting them be independent". There were very serious attempts to try and reach a settlement with the Palestinians that would give them an independent state, and indeed that was the birth of the current Palestinian government/state in the form of the PA, with what independence they do have. But the Palestinians refused and walked away from getting a state. And Israel did leave Gaza, to at least some extent - they then elected Hamas and started firing rockets at Israel two years later. I'm obviously a bit biased towards the more pro-Israel narrative, though I try to see things from the Palestinian perspective as well. But I don't think you can completely lay the blame on one side, as you seemed to do (and sorry if I misunderstood you).