5 ms·

We do have some success in regulating abhorrent uses of technology. See mustard gas and chemical weapons in general. Sure, some will persist, but it is preferab

by tmnvix 2y ago

We do have some success in regulating abhorrent uses of technology. See mustard gas and chemical weapons in general. Sure, some will persist, but it is preferable to not attempting to restrict such uses.

exe34 2y ago
these are quite unfocussed weapons though, and cause mass civilian casualties. blowing up pagers bought by terrorists to avoid using the cell network is the opposite of abhorrent use of technology. it's the use of technology to minimise civilian casualties. there's no other way ever devised that would drop 4000 terrorists in an urban environment with barely a handful of collateral damage.
- tmnvix 2y ago
  Obviously, my use of the word 'abhorrent' is a subjective judgement, but ask yourself honestly, if Hezbollah had carried out exactly this type of attack on Israeli defence force personal and their associates, would this not be almost universally accepted as evidence that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation?
  - exe34 2y ago
    it's almost as if "terrorism" has a specific definition. a group trying to change a legitimate government's policy through violent means that inspire fear in the general population. if heznobollas had done it, yes, it would have been terrorism. they are a non-state actor that's been constantly firing rockets into a legitimate state for a year, and are using violence against a general population to attempt to change the policy of their legitimately elected government. it's precisely because it was done by a legitimate state defending its population, and in this case inflicting the damage on the very terrorists that sought the communication technology with minimal collateral damage that it's a legitimate weapon of war. words matter.
    - 8note 2y ago
      State actor is an arbitrary definition, based on what states your own government recognizes. Hezbollah within Lebanon is the state, with more power than the recognized government. If they're using terrorist actions, those should also be considered legitimate
      - exe34 2y ago
        Hezbollah represents the will of Hezbollah and Iran, not Lebanon. we didn't accept the Nazis as legitimate government of France, we bombed them to hell.

by tmnvix 2y ago

exe34 2y ago

these are quite unfocussed weapons though, and cause mass civilian casualties. blowing up pagers bought by terrorists to avoid using the cell network is the opposite of abhorrent use of technology. it's the use of technology to minimise civilian casualties. there's no other way ever devised that would drop 4000 terrorists in an urban environment with barely a handful of collateral damage.

tmnvix 2y ago
Obviously, my use of the word 'abhorrent' is a subjective judgement, but ask yourself honestly, if Hezbollah had carried out exactly this type of attack on Israeli defence force personal and their associates, would this not be almost universally accepted as evidence that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation?
- exe34 2y ago
  it's almost as if "terrorism" has a specific definition. a group trying to change a legitimate government's policy through violent means that inspire fear in the general population. if heznobollas had done it, yes, it would have been terrorism. they are a non-state actor that's been constantly firing rockets into a legitimate state for a year, and are using violence against a general population to attempt to change the policy of their legitimately elected government. it's precisely because it was done by a legitimate state defending its population, and in this case inflicting the damage on the very terrorists that sought the communication technology with minimal collateral damage that it's a legitimate weapon of war. words matter.
  - 8note 2y ago
    State actor is an arbitrary definition, based on what states your own government recognizes. Hezbollah within Lebanon is the state, with more power than the recognized government. If they're using terrorist actions, those should also be considered legitimate
    - exe34 2y ago
      Hezbollah represents the will of Hezbollah and Iran, not Lebanon. we didn't accept the Nazis as legitimate government of France, we bombed them to hell.