7 ms·

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 hu

by 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.
- invalidname 2y ago
  The attack on the Pentagon was illegal because it happened without an act of war and was unprovoked. This is an organization that fires 25 missiles on civilians every day. It's enabled by all of its people, also the desk clerks who enable this. If you're working for a terrorist organization that fires on civilians and killed hundreds of Americans then you should expect some payback.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    Your last sentence could literally be pulled from some terrorist "Why we attacked you" screed if you just swapped out "Americans" for some other group.
    - invalidname 2y ago
      That's how the terrorists phrase it so yes. But that's taking them at their words rather than taking them at their actions. The biggest difference is: in this case the terrorists get the payback. The people who are actually guilty/related to that. Organizations like Hezbollah target civilians and fire blindly at entire regions. There are quite a lot of other differences, I suggest avoiding false equivalencies of this sort.
      - aprilthird2021 2y ago
        It's not a false equivalence. Both Hezbollah and Israel have been firing blindly at entire regions and knowingly hitting civilians behind the claim that there is a military target intended somewhere in there. The difference may be ideological, geopolitical, etc. but it is not that one side follows the rules and the other breaks them.
        invalidname 2y ago
        Again, repeating terrorist claims on face value. You choose to believe people who tried to deny killing 12 children in a soccer stadium. People who helped Assad stay in power. People who killed countless Lebanese people, their own fing people... Over Israel. Why? I get that Israel has a lot it needs to improve on, but it has been remarkably "clean" compared even to American war standards e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urb... It didn't bomb civilian areas knowingly, that would constitute a war crime and would immediately trigger the Leahy Law that would block all aid to Israel https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/human-rights/leahy-law-fact-sheet/ https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-r... If there was a shred of actual *real* evidence of Israel intentionally targeting civilians it would be in US courts right now trying to enforce that law. The fact is this is all online propaganda where facts don't actually matter and proof isn't necessary... Speaks volumes... > The difference may be ideological, geopolitical, etc. but it is not that one side follows the rules and the other breaks them. If your ideology is global Sharia law then sure... If you hate the West then sure. It's just ideology. Their ideology is that Israel should be wiped out. The ideology of Israel is that it's already there and should remain there. I don't think calling this "different ideologies" is a legitimate stance.
dralley 2y ago
Pretty much every legal expert I've seen thinks the targeting of the attack is perfectly legal. The primary legal issues will be whether or not it legally constitutes a "booby trap", which may be illegal. IMO, it's a categorical error to say that putting an explosive in a secure pager purchased in bulk order by an internationally recognized terrorist militia is equivalent to rigging a door to explode when anyone (no matter who) opens it. Yes, the actual wording of the law doesn't do a great job of delineating the two situations, but let's not pretend there's not a difference. When the law was written, the distinction between "civilian use" and "military use" was far far more clear than it is today. Militaries around the world use off the shelf commercial equipment today. A "commercial radio issued to military personnel" doesn't feel like it should be given a pass as being "civilian" because the type of object it is can be purchased by anyone. In practice it was specifically handed out as a military-use item to members of a military organization.
- vorpalhex 2y ago
  These weren't civilian pagers, they were specifically tied to Hezbollah's comms network which is separate from Lebanese civilian infra.
  - dralley 2y ago
    Which makes it even more clear that the pagers shouldn't be classified as "civilian objects", yes.
buran77 2y ago
> That's not obvious here The method of delivery is too imprecise to guarantee only (or even mostly) the combatants are targeted. A targeting system that was "blind" by design (intention) was almost guaranteed to harm civilians inside civilian buildings, and it did. Terror is a big component of terrorism and the goal of terrorizing civilian population with random explosions and death around them was definitely achieved. In effect this was a slightly more targeted version of bombing a hospital because some military targets are there. Also from the quote above: > “Authorities have reportedly dismantled unexploded devices in universities, banks, and hospitals.”
- vorpalhex 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - buran77 2y ago
    > Don't associate with terrorists. Do not shelter terrorists. Do not eat dinner with terrorists. Don't get car rides from terrorists. That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this. And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street isn't proof or even suspicion of association. Make sure your kid checks everyone's terrorist credentials when playing in the park. And the Uber driver. And the pizza delivery guy. And the supermarket clerk. And the rando just walking past you.
    - spwa4 2y ago
      > That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this ... True. Well, not impossible, but no guarantees. But the stipulation is that civilians lose their protection if they are close or inside military targets ... > And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street ... True. But civilians lose protection if they are close to or inside military targets. The onus is on the militaries ... and terrorists ... to distance themselves and their infrastructure from civilians. Western militaries do this, and not doing it, even when there are no victims, is a warcrime. Terrorists, as a matter of policy, don't do this. That's one of the things that makes them so problematic. The rules are documented here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... You will find stuff like: Article 19 The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. (this matters because a lot of stuff, like humanitarian flights/convoys/red cross personnel/... are given "the same protection as hospitals") Article 28 The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 29 The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred. ... In other words: human shields may be attacked if they are near a valid military target. If anything happens to them, the responsibility for this rests solely with the government they live under. (and thus NOT the attacking party)
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
I don't know if people are picking up the context shift here. It's true the UN is unanimously anti Israel for most of its existence. This isn't a change. And of course Israel ignores the UN, also not a change. The Lebanese/Hezbollah better wise up. The Israelis outgun them by inconceivable degrees, and like the Palestinians, were only saved from the usual historical result of annihilation by the politics of oil for the last 75 years. However: 1) the USA is oil independent with shale oil, and has no functional interest in the region anymore 2) the Saudis, who no longer have the us military as de facto mercenaries on demand and longtime funder of anti Israel groups, need a military power against their biggest threats (Iran and turkey), and are now allies with Israel. 3) yes saudi oil is still important to China,Japan, and Europe, but EVs and alternative energy are poised to make oil a strategically insignificant product in the coming decades, one that can be easily sourced by major militaries without caring about the muddle east. Anyway, so people arguing about who is the terrorist and who is the valid nation state are arguing from the context of an international trade system that gives a damn about the region being stable. Israel knows the new rules: nobody cares, just like nobody cares about the Tigers war and nobody cares about Armenia Azerbaijan and whatever other hotspots around the world. Hezbollah and Palestinians need to wake up to this reality, even though the sad fact is that they won't as long as Iranian funds are the only thing that keeps the lights on for them.
- DAGdug 2y ago
  Most of the world cares. Like they did when South Africa was merrily apartheid-ing. Only the American establishment doesn’t care, but hopefully that will change with progressives hitting a critical mass.

by xxpor 2y ago

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.
invalidname 2y ago
The attack on the Pentagon was illegal because it happened without an act of war and was unprovoked. This is an organization that fires 25 missiles on civilians every day. It's enabled by all of its people, also the desk clerks who enable this. If you're working for a terrorist organization that fires on civilians and killed hundreds of Americans then you should expect some payback.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  Your last sentence could literally be pulled from some terrorist "Why we attacked you" screed if you just swapped out "Americans" for some other group.
  - invalidname 2y ago
    That's how the terrorists phrase it so yes. But that's taking them at their words rather than taking them at their actions. The biggest difference is: in this case the terrorists get the payback. The people who are actually guilty/related to that. Organizations like Hezbollah target civilians and fire blindly at entire regions. There are quite a lot of other differences, I suggest avoiding false equivalencies of this sort.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      It's not a false equivalence. Both Hezbollah and Israel have been firing blindly at entire regions and knowingly hitting civilians behind the claim that there is a military target intended somewhere in there. The difference may be ideological, geopolitical, etc. but it is not that one side follows the rules and the other breaks them.
      - invalidname 2y ago
        Again, repeating terrorist claims on face value. You choose to believe people who tried to deny killing 12 children in a soccer stadium. People who helped Assad stay in power. People who killed countless Lebanese people, their own fing people... Over Israel. Why? I get that Israel has a lot it needs to improve on, but it has been remarkably "clean" compared even to American war standards e.g. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286 https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urb... It didn't bomb civilian areas knowingly, that would constitute a war crime and would immediately trigger the Leahy Law that would block all aid to Israel https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-rights-and-labor/human-rights/leahy-law-fact-sheet/ https://www.state.gov/key-topics-bureau-of-democracy-human-r... If there was a shred of actual *real* evidence of Israel intentionally targeting civilians it would be in US courts right now trying to enforce that law. The fact is this is all online propaganda where facts don't actually matter and proof isn't necessary... Speaks volumes... > The difference may be ideological, geopolitical, etc. but it is not that one side follows the rules and the other breaks them. If your ideology is global Sharia law then sure... If you hate the West then sure. It's just ideology. Their ideology is that Israel should be wiped out. The ideology of Israel is that it's already there and should remain there. I don't think calling this "different ideologies" is a legitimate stance.

dralley 2y ago

Pretty much every legal expert I've seen thinks the targeting of the attack is perfectly legal. The primary legal issues will be whether or not it legally constitutes a "booby trap", which may be illegal. IMO, it's a categorical error to say that putting an explosive in a secure pager purchased in bulk order by an internationally recognized terrorist militia is equivalent to rigging a door to explode when anyone (no matter who) opens it. Yes, the actual wording of the law doesn't do a great job of delineating the two situations, but let's not pretend there's not a difference. When the law was written, the distinction between "civilian use" and "military use" was far far more clear than it is today. Militaries around the world use off the shelf commercial equipment today. A "commercial radio issued to military personnel" doesn't feel like it should be given a pass as being "civilian" because the type of object it is can be purchased by anyone. In practice it was specifically handed out as a military-use item to members of a military organization.

vorpalhex 2y ago
These weren't civilian pagers, they were specifically tied to Hezbollah's comms network which is separate from Lebanese civilian infra.
- dralley 2y ago
  Which makes it even more clear that the pagers shouldn't be classified as "civilian objects", yes.

buran77 2y ago

> That's not obvious here The method of delivery is too imprecise to guarantee only (or even mostly) the combatants are targeted. A targeting system that was "blind" by design (intention) was almost guaranteed to harm civilians inside civilian buildings, and it did. Terror is a big component of terrorism and the goal of terrorizing civilian population with random explosions and death around them was definitely achieved. In effect this was a slightly more targeted version of bombing a hospital because some military targets are there. Also from the quote above: > “Authorities have reportedly dismantled unexploded devices in universities, banks, and hospitals.”

vorpalhex 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- buran77 2y ago
  > Don't associate with terrorists. Do not shelter terrorists. Do not eat dinner with terrorists. Don't get car rides from terrorists. That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this. And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street isn't proof or even suspicion of association. Make sure your kid checks everyone's terrorist credentials when playing in the park. And the Uber driver. And the pizza delivery guy. And the supermarket clerk. And the rando just walking past you.
  - spwa4 2y ago
    > That's impossible to achieve in practice as you probably knew before spending time to write this ... True. Well, not impossible, but no guarantees. But the stipulation is that civilians lose their protection if they are close or inside military targets ... > And it's also not a valid defense for any attacker since being next to the wrong person on the street ... True. But civilians lose protection if they are close to or inside military targets. The onus is on the militaries ... and terrorists ... to distance themselves and their infrastructure from civilians. Western militaries do this, and not doing it, even when there are no victims, is a warcrime. Terrorists, as a matter of policy, don't do this. That's one of the things that makes them so problematic. The rules are documented here: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-protection-civilian-persons-time-war https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/... You will find stuff like: Article 19 The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded. (this matters because a lot of stuff, like humanitarian flights/convoys/red cross personnel/... are given "the same protection as hospitals") Article 28 The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations. Article 29 The Party to the conflict in whose hands protected persons may be is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred. ... In other words: human shields may be attacked if they are near a valid military target. If anything happens to them, the responsibility for this rests solely with the government they live under. (and thus NOT the attacking party)

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

I don't know if people are picking up the context shift here. It's true the UN is unanimously anti Israel for most of its existence. This isn't a change. And of course Israel ignores the UN, also not a change. The Lebanese/Hezbollah better wise up. The Israelis outgun them by inconceivable degrees, and like the Palestinians, were only saved from the usual historical result of annihilation by the politics of oil for the last 75 years. However: 1) the USA is oil independent with shale oil, and has no functional interest in the region anymore 2) the Saudis, who no longer have the us military as de facto mercenaries on demand and longtime funder of anti Israel groups, need a military power against their biggest threats (Iran and turkey), and are now allies with Israel. 3) yes saudi oil is still important to China,Japan, and Europe, but EVs and alternative energy are poised to make oil a strategically insignificant product in the coming decades, one that can be easily sourced by major militaries without caring about the muddle east. Anyway, so people arguing about who is the terrorist and who is the valid nation state are arguing from the context of an international trade system that gives a damn about the region being stable. Israel knows the new rules: nobody cares, just like nobody cares about the Tigers war and nobody cares about Armenia Azerbaijan and whatever other hotspots around the world. Hezbollah and Palestinians need to wake up to this reality, even though the sad fact is that they won't as long as Iranian funds are the only thing that keeps the lights on for them.

DAGdug 2y ago
Most of the world cares. Like they did when South Africa was merrily apartheid-ing. Only the American establishment doesn’t care, but hopefully that will change with progressives hitting a critical mass.