6 ms·

> “These attacks represent a new development in warfare, where communication tools become weapons, simultaneously exploding across marketplaces, on street corne

> “These attacks represent a new development in warfare, where communication tools become weapons, simultaneously exploding across marketplaces, on street corners, and in homes as daily life unfolds,” UN human rights chief Volker Türk told the Security Council last Friday. “Authorities have reportedly dismantled unexploded devices in universities, banks, and hospitals.” Calling it just "warfare" greatly detracts from the terrorist nature of this scandal.

rajup 2y ago
Oh it's not terrorism if it's done by a US-backed vassal state. /s
- hudon 2y ago
  [flagged]
- Tagbert 2y ago
  This would be a lot easier if Israel really was a vassal. Then we could decree that they halt the offensive and settle with the Palestinians. As it is, this ally has their own goals which don’t always align with the goals of the US.
  - GoldenMonkey 2y ago
    It's more like the US is a vassal of Israel. Obviously, we bend over backwards for Israel
hypeatei 2y ago
That and the inherent risk of fucking with a supply chain. I saw a lot of people covering for Mossad saying they were sure it was going to Hezbollah so it's all fine. I guess people trust and simp for intelligence agencies now or maybe there was a lot of operatives in that thread... who knows.
- asynchronous 2y ago
  To be fair, the supply chain angle was probably the main point of the attack- it’s a psychological flex in the highest order, you can’t even trust your equipment anymore.
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    I wonder if we should come up with a term for an attack whose goal is to sow fear and distrust rather than accomplish a concrete military objective.
  - Izkata 2y ago
    That's pretty much certain: First the pagers, then after they have a chance to switch devices the walkie talkies were detonated the same way.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    That's generally what sets terrorism apart from "regular" crime. Of course, if you're a civilian anywhere near one of these pager-bombs when were triggered it's going to have the same effect.
  - praptak 2y ago
    The blast radius of trust is much larger though. If we don't have a reliable way of stopping similar attacks in the future then it's pretty bad for everyone, not only for Hezbollah.
xxpor 2y ago
Terrorism implies the targets are non-combatants, and that was intentional. That's not obvious here. Opening the door to supply chain attacks like this is a huge problem, but I'm not sure it was illegal under IHL.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  The targets included non-combatants intentionally. Was trying to hijack a plane and hit the Pentagon not a terrorist attack then since the Pentagon is full of military members?
  - dralley 2y ago
    >The targets included non-combatants intentionally. No, it didn't.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      Answer my other question
      - dralley 2y ago
        It's not applicable. I don't feel any need to answer a complete non-sequitur.
    - GoldenMonkey 2y ago
      Sure it did. Setting off bombs in residential areas will always have non-combatant casualties. "Intent" mind reading or not. This is what happened and is a terrorist act.
      - dralley 2y ago
        Setting off bombs frequently results in non-combatant casualties no matter where it happens. Hezbollah has no "military bases" so I don't know what you expect. The existence of non-combatant casualties doesn't make the strike illegal.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jeffwask 2y ago
This was no different than any other terror attack. The person pushing the button had no visibility into who was holding the device and who would be injured in the blast radius. These sorts of attacks have always been possible, and most counties have not chosen to go this route due to the trickledown effect on society at large if they lose confidence in the safety of things they use every day,
- abigail95 2y ago
  I'm not at all worried that any of my electronics are about to explode. Same reason I'm not worried my wedding will be blown up by a drone strike - I don't let terrorist infiltrate my society. If my family gets blown up because my neighbor was storing a cruise missile in his living room - he's my enemy. Not the person that blew them up.
  - GoldenMonkey 2y ago
    This didn't happen only in living rooms... this was among the civilian and non-involved populace. It happened outside their homes, inside restaurants, inside malls. So, if someone sets off a bomb in a mall...to kill a terrorist... it's not a terrorist act? And do these people really have the POWER to not let terrorist infiltrate their society?
    - jeffwask 2y ago
      That's exactly it, it could have been sitting on a coffee table with kids playing around it. Terrorists bad, governments stooping down to the same level is also bad.
    - foogazi 2y ago
      > So, if someone sets off a bomb in a mall...to kill a terrorist... it's not a terrorist act? No, by definition a terrorist act is done to cause “terror” These were assassinations with collateral damage
  - fatbird 2y ago
    If the person blowing them up takes out the entire city block that happens to include my family, then the person blowing them up is also my enemy. Your family dies as collateral damage and your reaction is "enh, they did what was necessary"? What if your wedding is blown up by drone strike because of some analyst's mistake, or choice to err on the side of "probably terrorist"?
golergka 2y ago
This attack has nothing to do with terrorism. I've grown tired of seeing this claim again and again, and wrote everything up here if you're interested. https://github.com/golergka/golergka/blob/main/israeli-pager-attack.md https://github.com/golergka/golergka/blob/main/israeli-pager...

rajup 2y ago

Oh it's not terrorism if it's done by a US-backed vassal state. /s

hudon 2y ago
[flagged]
Tagbert 2y ago
This would be a lot easier if Israel really was a vassal. Then we could decree that they halt the offensive and settle with the Palestinians. As it is, this ally has their own goals which don’t always align with the goals of the US.
- GoldenMonkey 2y ago
  It's more like the US is a vassal of Israel. Obviously, we bend over backwards for Israel

hypeatei 2y ago

That and the inherent risk of fucking with a supply chain. I saw a lot of people covering for Mossad saying they were sure it was going to Hezbollah so it's all fine. I guess people trust and simp for intelligence agencies now or maybe there was a lot of operatives in that thread... who knows.

asynchronous 2y ago
To be fair, the supply chain angle was probably the main point of the attack- it’s a psychological flex in the highest order, you can’t even trust your equipment anymore.
- giraffe_lady 2y ago
  I wonder if we should come up with a term for an attack whose goal is to sow fear and distrust rather than accomplish a concrete military objective.
- Izkata 2y ago
  That's pretty much certain: First the pagers, then after they have a chance to switch devices the walkie talkies were detonated the same way.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  That's generally what sets terrorism apart from "regular" crime. Of course, if you're a civilian anywhere near one of these pager-bombs when were triggered it's going to have the same effect.
- praptak 2y ago
  The blast radius of trust is much larger though. If we don't have a reliable way of stopping similar attacks in the future then it's pretty bad for everyone, not only for Hezbollah.

xxpor 2y ago

Terrorism implies the targets are non-combatants, and that was intentional. That's not obvious here. Opening the door to supply chain attacks like this is a huge problem, but I'm not sure it was illegal under IHL.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
The targets included non-combatants intentionally. Was trying to hijack a plane and hit the Pentagon not a terrorist attack then since the Pentagon is full of military members?
- dralley 2y ago
  >The targets included non-combatants intentionally. No, it didn't.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Answer my other question
    - dralley 2y ago
      It's not applicable. I don't feel any need to answer a complete non-sequitur.
  - GoldenMonkey 2y ago
    Sure it did. Setting off bombs in residential areas will always have non-combatant casualties. "Intent" mind reading or not. This is what happened and is a terrorist act.
    - dralley 2y ago
      Setting off bombs frequently results in non-combatant casualties no matter where it happens. Hezbollah has no "military bases" so I don't know what you expect. The existence of non-combatant casualties doesn't make the strike illegal.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jeffwask 2y ago

This was no different than any other terror attack. The person pushing the button had no visibility into who was holding the device and who would be injured in the blast radius. These sorts of attacks have always been possible, and most counties have not chosen to go this route due to the trickledown effect on society at large if they lose confidence in the safety of things they use every day,

abigail95 2y ago
I'm not at all worried that any of my electronics are about to explode. Same reason I'm not worried my wedding will be blown up by a drone strike - I don't let terrorist infiltrate my society. If my family gets blown up because my neighbor was storing a cruise missile in his living room - he's my enemy. Not the person that blew them up.
- GoldenMonkey 2y ago
  This didn't happen only in living rooms... this was among the civilian and non-involved populace. It happened outside their homes, inside restaurants, inside malls. So, if someone sets off a bomb in a mall...to kill a terrorist... it's not a terrorist act? And do these people really have the POWER to not let terrorist infiltrate their society?
  - jeffwask 2y ago
    That's exactly it, it could have been sitting on a coffee table with kids playing around it. Terrorists bad, governments stooping down to the same level is also bad.
  - foogazi 2y ago
    > So, if someone sets off a bomb in a mall...to kill a terrorist... it's not a terrorist act? No, by definition a terrorist act is done to cause “terror” These were assassinations with collateral damage
- fatbird 2y ago
  If the person blowing them up takes out the entire city block that happens to include my family, then the person blowing them up is also my enemy. Your family dies as collateral damage and your reaction is "enh, they did what was necessary"? What if your wedding is blown up by drone strike because of some analyst's mistake, or choice to err on the side of "probably terrorist"?

golergka 2y ago

This attack has nothing to do with terrorism. I've grown tired of seeing this claim again and again, and wrote everything up here if you're interested. https://github.com/golergka/golergka/blob/main/israeli-pager-attack.md https://github.com/golergka/golergka/blob/main/israeli-pager...