5 ms·

> Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism: Th

by tharne 2y ago

> Leon Panetta, the former head of the CIA, said that the indiscriminate nature of these attacks makes him consider these attacks to be a form of terrorism: This was the exact opposite of "indiscriminate". The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization. People love to try an claim that they're anti-Israel and not antisemitic, but no other country in the world would be held to this kind of ridiculous standard in the face of constant terrorist attacks on a civilian population.

xnyan 2y ago
>The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization. And the people who happened to be next to them when they went off?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > the people who happened to be next to them when they went off? Collateral damage. Same as in any war. This discussion belies a naivete about how wars are fought. War--theconventional, legal, internationally-sanctioned kind--is horrible. The moment any side commits to war, it's committed to committing atrocities. You can't fight war without being shockingly cruel and inhumane. We have certain limits that have been internationally agreed. But let's be honest, nobody in the Middle East is following them. (The difficulty being compounded when one side is filled with quasi-insurgent/quasi-state participants.) And let's be more honest: nobody has treated them as totally binding ever.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - xnyan 2y ago
    Are the Israeli civilians killed October 7th also collateral damage?
    - tptacek 2y ago
      No, they were the intended targets of those attacks. The term "collateral" means "unintended".
tmnvix 2y ago
I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. Are other members of Hezbollah considered legitimate targets? From memory, the Iranian ambassador had one. Were they a legitimate target?
- bhouston 2y ago
  > I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities. I am not sure of final tallies, but the source is here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities A 3:1 CCR is close to par for the course for NATO and positively honourable for e.g. Russia [1]. Tptacek's take is correct. (Of course it's Patrick.) One can reasonably disagree with the strike, even if limited to the precedent it set for plastic detonators that most countries' scanners can't pick up. But as a military tactic, even taking Hezbollah's numbers at face value, it was normally discriminating for a Western power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_I...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bostik 2y ago
If a similar and equally large-scale attack was done by a nation at war with US, targeting US military command, would that be a low-casualty operation or an act of terrorism? And would it matter if the technical interpretation differed wildly from the general perception? For what it's worth, I consider both parties in their forever war to be irredeemable bastards. As I learned early on, the network of tunnels in Gaza has no civilian shelter space, a clear indication that their general population's safety has not been a concern. On the upside, if there is any to be found, at least it means there won't be human shields to speak of down there. That said, I don't know if that would make a difference. Both sides have demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to slaughter civilians.
- gamblor956 2y ago
  If there is a declared state of war between two countries, than someone else doing what Israel did to Hezbollah would be considered a valid act of war. The problem is that Israel and Hezbollah are currently in a state of informal hostilities but are not in a state of declared war. That distinction matters at the international level. In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. It turns out Hamas had been using the most recent truce to build up its forces and plan those terrorist attacks, which is why Israel is unwilling to enter into a new truce. (And on a historical note, Hamas has unilaterally broken or violated every truce and peace treaty it has negotiated with Israel.) Given that the Gazan civilian population was openly sheltering and supporting the Hamas forces, the international rules of war hold that Gazan civilians are legitimate collateral damage so long as there was no intent by Israel to deliberately attack civilian targets. Importantly, Israel is formally at war with Hamas, so the legal framework is different from what happened with Hezbollah.
  - pcthrowaway 2y ago
    > In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. This is one of the things that keep getting repeated which I've found no source for. "There was a ceasefire on October 6" I'm aware of a 1-month ceasefire in 2014, which I believe was respected by both parties. There was a 6-month ceasefire in 2008 which was broken by Israel shortly before its completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_ceasefire#Breaking_of_the_ceasefire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_ceas... Show me a source for a ceasefire/truce that was in effect on October 6 2023?

by tharne 2y ago

xnyan 2y ago

>The Israelis blew up pagers belonging to members of a known terrorist organization. And the people who happened to be next to them when they went off?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> the people who happened to be next to them when they went off? Collateral damage. Same as in any war. This discussion belies a naivete about how wars are fought. War--theconventional, legal, internationally-sanctioned kind--is horrible. The moment any side commits to war, it's committed to committing atrocities. You can't fight war without being shockingly cruel and inhumane. We have certain limits that have been internationally agreed. But let's be honest, nobody in the Middle East is following them. (The difficulty being compounded when one side is filled with quasi-insurgent/quasi-state participants.) And let's be more honest: nobody has treated them as totally binding ever.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- xnyan 2y ago
  Are the Israeli civilians killed October 7th also collateral damage?
  - tptacek 2y ago
    No, they were the intended targets of those attacks. The term "collateral" means "unintended".

tmnvix 2y ago

I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. Are other members of Hezbollah considered legitimate targets? From memory, the Iranian ambassador had one. Were they a legitimate target?

bhouston 2y ago
> I haven't seen any actual data on who died as a result of this attack, but is it confirmed that it was essentially only members of Hezbollah's militant wing? I've heard reports that that wasn't the case. 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities. I am not sure of final tallies, but the source is here: https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > 4 of the 12 killed in early reports were either children and healthcare workers, so early estimates were 33% civilian causalities A 3:1 CCR is close to par for the course for NATO and positively honourable for e.g. Russia [1]. Tptacek's take is correct. (Of course it's Patrick.) One can reasonably disagree with the strike, even if limited to the precedent it set for plastic detonators that most countries' scanners can't pick up. But as a military tactic, even taking Hezbollah's numbers at face value, it was normally discriminating for a Western power. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#2023_I...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bostik 2y ago

If a similar and equally large-scale attack was done by a nation at war with US, targeting US military command, would that be a low-casualty operation or an act of terrorism? And would it matter if the technical interpretation differed wildly from the general perception? For what it's worth, I consider both parties in their forever war to be irredeemable bastards. As I learned early on, the network of tunnels in Gaza has no civilian shelter space, a clear indication that their general population's safety has not been a concern. On the upside, if there is any to be found, at least it means there won't be human shields to speak of down there. That said, I don't know if that would make a difference. Both sides have demonstrated that they are perfectly happy to slaughter civilians.

gamblor956 2y ago
If there is a declared state of war between two countries, than someone else doing what Israel did to Hezbollah would be considered a valid act of war. The problem is that Israel and Hezbollah are currently in a state of informal hostilities but are not in a state of declared war. That distinction matters at the international level. In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. It turns out Hamas had been using the most recent truce to build up its forces and plan those terrorist attacks, which is why Israel is unwilling to enter into a new truce. (And on a historical note, Hamas has unilaterally broken or violated every truce and peace treaty it has negotiated with Israel.) Given that the Gazan civilian population was openly sheltering and supporting the Hamas forces, the international rules of war hold that Gazan civilians are legitimate collateral damage so long as there was no intent by Israel to deliberately attack civilian targets. Importantly, Israel is formally at war with Hamas, so the legal framework is different from what happened with Hezbollah.
- pcthrowaway 2y ago
  > In the case of Gaza, Israel and Hamas were in a truce, until Hamas unilaterally broke that truce on October 7, 2023. This is one of the things that keep getting repeated which I've found no source for. "There was a ceasefire on October 6" I'm aware of a 1-month ceasefire in 2014, which I believe was respected by both parties. There was a 6-month ceasefire in 2008 which was broken by Israel shortly before its completion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_ceasefire#Breaking_of_the_ceasefire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_ceas... Show me a source for a ceasefire/truce that was in effect on October 6 2023?