3 ms·

Is the IDF dropping bombs on apartment buildings in Beirut "terrorism"?

by cempaka 2y ago

eastbound 2y ago
[flagged]
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  The decisions about which buildings to bomb are made by AI in order to select targets faster than humans can generate and review them manually. When you say making individual decisions, you mean through AI automation. This info comes from primary sources. Showing restraint with atomic weapons is hardly a pass for lesser violence
- kombine 2y ago
  > Example: They have the nuclear weapon, so they could end Gaza in one day. Are you being serious here?
- cempaka 2y ago
  What percentage of Gaza, would you say, has to be leveled and carpet bombed before you would no longer characterize the Israelis as "limiting collateral damage"?
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    Total nuclear annihilation. They consider their restraint against doing the temptation laudable
HideousKojima 2y ago
[flagged]
- hashbig 2y ago
  That's not how collateral damage works. The moral and legal responsibility is on the one dropping the bombs. As horrible as the US wars were, when we decided to kill Bin Laden, we sent a special operations team at night instead of flattening entire villages in Pakistan. The indiscriminate killing that Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon is unprecedented since the second World War. Justifying it will normalize civilian casualties in future wars that with be disastrous for everyone.
  - wahnfrieden 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
    - cempaka 2y ago
      Wow, naming the Skynet targeting system "Gospel" puts a particularly Satanic flourish on the whole thing.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    >That's not how collateral damage works. Not according to the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflicts-what-law-says https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during... Otherwise protected targets like hospitals lose their protected status if they're used as a base of military operations or for other similar purposes. And the US didn't send a spec ops team to get Bin Laden because they were worried about the Geneva Conventions. They sent one because they wanted to make absolutely certain that they got their target (see Bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora in 2001 for an example of this) and because they were operating in Pakistan so showing up with a whole brigade or carpet bombing the compound wouldn't have gone over well with the Pakistani government. It already didn't go over well with just a surgical strike by spec ops, it would have been much worse if it was done by a larger show of force.
- cempaka 2y ago
  Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs? Or, conversely, the label must also be applied to IDF sorties?
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    >Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs? Only if you ignore the distinctions between what was essentially a civil war fought by insurgents (like in Apartheid South Africa) and a war between two sovereign powers.
    - cempaka 2y ago
      And how is that distinction relevant to whether a given act should be labeled "terrorism" or not?
aprilthird2021 2y ago
The poster seems to be arguing that what we consider "terrorism" can be justified sometimes, but people have a need to whitewash their heroes rather than perform these justifications, so I think he is on your side

Is the IDF dropping bombs on apartment buildings in Beirut "terrorism"?

eastbound 2y ago

[flagged]

wahnfrieden 2y ago
The decisions about which buildings to bomb are made by AI in order to select targets faster than humans can generate and review them manually. When you say making individual decisions, you mean through AI automation. This info comes from primary sources. Showing restraint with atomic weapons is hardly a pass for lesser violence
kombine 2y ago
> Example: They have the nuclear weapon, so they could end Gaza in one day. Are you being serious here?
cempaka 2y ago
What percentage of Gaza, would you say, has to be leveled and carpet bombed before you would no longer characterize the Israelis as "limiting collateral damage"?
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  Total nuclear annihilation. They consider their restraint against doing the temptation laudable

HideousKojima 2y ago

[flagged]

hashbig 2y ago
That's not how collateral damage works. The moral and legal responsibility is on the one dropping the bombs. As horrible as the US wars were, when we decided to kill Bin Laden, we sent a special operations team at night instead of flattening entire villages in Pakistan. The indiscriminate killing that Israel is doing in Gaza and Lebanon is unprecedented since the second World War. Justifying it will normalize civilian casualties in future wars that with be disastrous for everyone.
- wahnfrieden 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_G...
  - cempaka 2y ago
    Wow, naming the Skynet targeting system "Gospel" puts a particularly Satanic flourish on the whole thing.
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >That's not how collateral damage works. Not according to the Red Cross: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during-armed-conflicts-what-law-says https://www.icrc.org/en/document/protection-hospitals-during... Otherwise protected targets like hospitals lose their protected status if they're used as a base of military operations or for other similar purposes. And the US didn't send a spec ops team to get Bin Laden because they were worried about the Geneva Conventions. They sent one because they wanted to make absolutely certain that they got their target (see Bin Laden's escape at Tora Bora in 2001 for an example of this) and because they were operating in Pakistan so showing up with a whole brigade or carpet bombing the compound wouldn't have gone over well with the Pakistani government. It already didn't go over well with just a surgical strike by spec ops, it would have been much worse if it was done by a larger show of force.
cempaka 2y ago
Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs? Or, conversely, the label must also be applied to IDF sorties?
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >Okay, well then if government buildings house any members of the IDF or apartheid South Africa's military, then certainly they are also legitimate targets and it is not "terrorism" to destroy them with bombs? Only if you ignore the distinctions between what was essentially a civil war fought by insurgents (like in Apartheid South Africa) and a war between two sovereign powers.
  - cempaka 2y ago
    And how is that distinction relevant to whether a given act should be labeled "terrorism" or not?

aprilthird2021 2y ago

The poster seems to be arguing that what we consider "terrorism" can be justified sometimes, but people have a need to whitewash their heroes rather than perform these justifications, so I think he is on your side