4 ms·

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 Hez

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
  Terrorist organizations are not protected by it. You can’t be an off duty terrorist. If Hezbollah wants to put itself under the command of the Lebanese army they are more than welcomed to do so.
  - mardifoufs 2y ago
    See, now that's better. At least you are back to using the standard IDF talking points. I hope you realize that labeling an organization as terrorist is inherently an intra-national thing. For the Hezbollah, the IDF is the terrorist organization (And they have killed more civilians in a few months than the hezb ever did). So again, glad that you agree with the Hezbollah's point of view and their apologia for targeting civilians. (Hence why international law applies even when one side labels the other terrorist. Hezbollah usually fights in uniform, which means that the "non uniformed combatant" exception in war crimes does not even apply) And the funny thing is that putting explosives in thousands of devices with 0 ways to track or make sure that they don't end up in say, an airplane, is the very definition of terrorism. It's something that even the Hezbollah hasn't done!
    - dogma1138 2y ago
      I’m not labeling it, Hezbollah isn’t part of the Lebanese state it’s a non state actor. If it would be it would be different but it also means that the Lebanese state would be directly liable for its actions.
bbqfog 2y ago
[flagged]

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
Terrorist organizations are not protected by it. You can’t be an off duty terrorist. If Hezbollah wants to put itself under the command of the Lebanese army they are more than welcomed to do so.
- mardifoufs 2y ago
  See, now that's better. At least you are back to using the standard IDF talking points. I hope you realize that labeling an organization as terrorist is inherently an intra-national thing. For the Hezbollah, the IDF is the terrorist organization (And they have killed more civilians in a few months than the hezb ever did). So again, glad that you agree with the Hezbollah's point of view and their apologia for targeting civilians. (Hence why international law applies even when one side labels the other terrorist. Hezbollah usually fights in uniform, which means that the "non uniformed combatant" exception in war crimes does not even apply) And the funny thing is that putting explosives in thousands of devices with 0 ways to track or make sure that they don't end up in say, an airplane, is the very definition of terrorism. It's something that even the Hezbollah hasn't done!
  - dogma1138 2y ago
    I’m not labeling it, Hezbollah isn’t part of the Lebanese state it’s a non state actor. If it would be it would be different but it also means that the Lebanese state would be directly liable for its actions.

bbqfog 2y ago

[flagged]