4 ms·

Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment. They are also alr

Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment. They are also already assigned to units, already have their equipment in storage, etc. Just like the Hezbollah members that got targeted in civilian areas. Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.

weatherlite 2y ago
> Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service. If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Every large-scale airstrike in an urban area hits random civilians, and so far the Lebanese Health Ministry has indicated that out of 558 killed so far, at least 148 (50 children, 94 women, and 4 medics) were very likely not to have been militants. Of course these are just the initial stages of reporting, and everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this background, the idea that the strikes have hit "almost entirely" militants is highly dubious.
- thunky 2y ago
  > Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens I beg to differ.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  No, it's not a "could" Israeli citizens are for the most part trained soldiers in what amounts to a less active reserve. It's more of a "will" than "could". In the same way that a Hezbollah militant with a pager isn't always an actual fighter on the frontline, but could be at any time.
  - dogma1138 2y ago
    With a one big distinction, Israel is a nation state, Hezbollah isn’t. This version of Schrödinger’s experiment is quite kafkaesque…
    - mardifoufs 2y ago
      That's pretty ironic, considering the mental gymnastics you have been doing to justify spreading thousands of explosive devices while calling the other side terrorists. So I guess the militants who died and were executed during the Warsaw uprising also deserved it, as they were part of a non nation state armed group and thus could be shot and executed even when unarmed. That's somehow okay according to your interpretation of international laws lol.
      - weatherlite 2y ago
        Did the fighters in Warsaw, if you can even call them fighters since they were a bunch of starving people with a few improvised weapons perhaps, open a war against Germany? I must have missed that.
      - dogma1138 2y ago
        The militants in Warsaw were part of the free state of Poland. If you are willing to make Hezbollah part of the Lebanese state we can talk.
  - weatherlite 2y ago
    > No, it's not a "could" Israeli citizens are for the most part trained soldiers in what amounts to a less active reserve. No, they're not. You don't know Israeli society or bothered to look at reserve numbers sorry.
dogma1138 2y ago
Because that’s the rules that were collectively established over time and were eventually codified in things like The Hague Convention. Again it’s not like Hezbollah plays by those rules. This is what happens when people have completely no idea on how wars are practically and lawfully waged by western countries.
- leereeves 2y ago
  > Because that’s the rules that were collectively established over time and were eventually codified in things like The Hague Convention. Why should an agreement negotiated in Europe in 1899 be binding on people outside Europe?
  - dogma1138 2y ago
    Do you think Hezbollah is bound by anything?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  Where does the Hague convention say that targeting off duty enemy fighters with explosives in civilian areas is fine? Or more precisely, what part of the Hague convention makes it fine for Israel to do that, but not for Hezbollah? Unless you are saying that every hezbollah militant with a pager is an active armed armed fighter which is completely ludicrous, considering where the explosions happened. Basically the only way to make your argument work is by applying a double standard where everyone that could quickly become an active Hezbollah fighter is fair game, but everyone that could quickly be activated in the IDF (and has the training, assigned unit and everything else planned for for said activation) is not fine. You could hand waive about international law,but it doesn't make it more true. (Israel prefers to just call everyone around them terrorists to avoid openly breaking international law anyways)
  - dogma1138 2y ago

weatherlite 2y ago

> Why the distinction? I mean they can be called into the army, have army training, and are basically just not actively fighting at that moment Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service. If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.

aguaviva 2y ago
Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Every large-scale airstrike in an urban area hits random civilians, and so far the Lebanese Health Ministry has indicated that out of 558 killed so far, at least 148 (50 children, 94 women, and 4 medics) were very likely not to have been militants. Of course these are just the initial stages of reporting, and everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this background, the idea that the strikes have hit "almost entirely" militants is highly dubious.
thunky 2y ago
> Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens I beg to differ.
mardifoufs 2y ago
No, it's not a "could" Israeli citizens are for the most part trained soldiers in what amounts to a less active reserve. It's more of a "will" than "could". In the same way that a Hezbollah militant with a pager isn't always an actual fighter on the frontline, but could be at any time.
- dogma1138 2y ago
  With a one big distinction, Israel is a nation state, Hezbollah isn’t. This version of Schrödinger’s experiment is quite kafkaesque…
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    That's pretty ironic, considering the mental gymnastics you have been doing to justify spreading thousands of explosive devices while calling the other side terrorists. So I guess the militants who died and were executed during the Warsaw uprising also deserved it, as they were part of a non nation state armed group and thus could be shot and executed even when unarmed. That's somehow okay according to your interpretation of international laws lol.
    - weatherlite 2y ago
      Did the fighters in Warsaw, if you can even call them fighters since they were a bunch of starving people with a few improvised weapons perhaps, open a war against Germany? I must have missed that.
    - dogma1138 2y ago
      The militants in Warsaw were part of the free state of Poland. If you are willing to make Hezbollah part of the Lebanese state we can talk.
- weatherlite 2y ago
  > No, it's not a "could" Israeli citizens are for the most part trained soldiers in what amounts to a less active reserve. No, they're not. You don't know Israeli society or bothered to look at reserve numbers sorry.

dogma1138 2y ago

Because that’s the rules that were collectively established over time and were eventually codified in things like The Hague Convention. Again it’s not like Hezbollah plays by those rules. This is what happens when people have completely no idea on how wars are practically and lawfully waged by western countries.

leereeves 2y ago
> Because that’s the rules that were collectively established over time and were eventually codified in things like The Hague Convention. Why should an agreement negotiated in Europe in 1899 be binding on people outside Europe?
- dogma1138 2y ago
  Do you think Hezbollah is bound by anything?
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
mardifoufs 2y ago
Where does the Hague convention say that targeting off duty enemy fighters with explosives in civilian areas is fine? Or more precisely, what part of the Hague convention makes it fine for Israel to do that, but not for Hezbollah? Unless you are saying that every hezbollah militant with a pager is an active armed armed fighter which is completely ludicrous, considering where the explosions happened. Basically the only way to make your argument work is by applying a double standard where everyone that could quickly become an active Hezbollah fighter is fair game, but everyone that could quickly be activated in the IDF (and has the training, assigned unit and everything else planned for for said activation) is not fine. You could hand waive about international law,but it doesn't make it more true. (Israel prefers to just call everyone around them terrorists to avoid openly breaking international law anyways)
- dogma1138 2y ago