8 ms·

I don't know if it's "legal" or not and by who's laws, but it certainly seems like terrorism to me (i.e. intentionally creating a state of terror). I think if

by zug_zug 11mo ago

I don't know if it's "legal" or not and by who's laws, but it certainly seems like terrorism to me (i.e. intentionally creating a state of terror). I think if Lebanon found a clever way to assassinate the top 45 military commanders in Israel the same people who are defending this wouldn't be calling it a "Legal act of war".

kyboren 11mo ago
I think this was a brilliant operation and perfectly lawful. I also think that if Lebanon (not Hezbollah) were in a state of war with Israel, yes, that would (depending on proportionality and target discrimination) be perfectly legal, too.
- Zetaphor 11mo ago
  [flagged]
  - kyboren 11mo ago
    The most brilliant part about the civilian casualties from this operation is how many fewer of them there were than there would have been with any alternative means available to Israel.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- ignoramous 11mo ago
  > perfectly lawful Are you a lawyer / expert in conflicts? If not, curious how you arrived at this conclusion.
  - kyboren 11mo ago
    No, I am not a lawyer. Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Anyway it seems to me that it was: - highly discriminatory - only Hezbollah commanders received these devices - it's an essential piece of military C2 gear so you'd expect they would keep possession of them at all times - the explosive was small enough to mitigate any risk to bystanders - targeted at combatants - likely to achieve (and in fact did achieve) military effects at least proportional to any collateral damage Passes the smell test to me. Would you still have a bone to pick with my credentials if I said that I thought the Dresden firebombings were not brilliant and not perfectly legal? Or the same about US military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels?
    - ignoramous 11mo ago
      > Passes the smell test to me Gotcha. Thanks. > Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious. > Would you still have a bone to pick with my credentials if I said that I thought the Dresden firebombings Felt the need to know whether I was mistaking an arm-chair opinion for an expert opinion, is all.
      - SomeUserName432 11mo ago
        > Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious. He did prefix it with "I think", highlighting that "this is my opinion / my interpretation", not that he is issuing a ruling as a judge in an international court.
        ignoramous 11mo ago
        I read "I think" for "brilliant operation".
    - KingMob 11mo ago
      > No, I am not a lawyer. Does that preclude my having an opinion on the [...] legality of a military strike? Hacker News arrogance in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. Feel free to also weigh in on Napoleonic currency reform, the proportion of Siberian anime fans, DNA methylation rates of Tyrannosaurs, and anything else you know nothing about. Or maybe I just skipped CS456: "How To Know Everything About Non-Tech Topics" in college.
    - tstrimple 11mo ago
      As long as it's other people's children being killed by Zionist terrorist attacks I'm sure you're perfectly okay with it. Typical conservative response to any tragedy. You'll only ever change your tune when it personally impacts you and then you'll be all confused about how anyone could support that.
dralley 11mo ago
Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be considered terrorism. But it wasn't random devices, it was communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members for their own purposes.
- zug_zug 11mo ago
  Two things Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. Secondly, even if you only kill generals, that doesn't mean you didn't cause terror for everybody else. Imagine for example that Hezbollah found a way to poison the food for Israel's top X military personnel. It would cause a state of emotional terror for many people in Israel about their food safety for decades most likely, even if they weren't in the military themselves.
  - dralley 11mo ago
    When Ukraine assassinates a Russian general with a car bomb, is that "terrorism" or is that just a targeted killing of a military leader during a war? Do you think this is somehow morally problematic beyond the typical standards of war? Do you think that "normal" means of military action, like dropping a 500lb bomb, is less "terroristic" than essentially setting off a firecracker in their face/hands/pocket? Because, like, that's the alternative. If your position is that all forms of war are illegal, then you have the right to that opinion, but it's not a realistic position.
    - mamonster 11mo ago
      >When Ukraine assassinates a Russian general with a car bomb, is that "terrorism" or is that just a targeted killing of a military leader during a war? That depends on when the car detonates. If the car detonates when he and his guard enter it at 6 am near the defense ministry sure. If the car detonates when it is parked in the middle of Moscow at noon and 100 people are around then by pre-2022 standards it would be terrorism. I think instead of these fake whataboutisms we should just admit that there is no universal bar and if it's "our team" then we are willing to change the standard. In this case, we know that when Israel set off these pagers some innocent bystanders got hurt. No need to "whatabout".
kjkjadksj 11mo ago
How are all acts of war not “intentionally creating a state of terror?”
- memonkey 11mo ago
  i think there are internationally recognized lawful terminology that several institutions and countries recognize that permit the use of "act of war" and "terrorism". but at any given time a country _does_ act of war/terrorism, they likely would deny claims of terrorism if it was recognized as terrorism by said institutions.
rat87 11mo ago
I don't see how. It was intended to paralyze and undermine a militia which it did. A lot of war actions create terror that doesn't make most war terrorism
impossiblefork 11mo ago
I don't whether something is terrorism as something that's relevant for whether it's allowed by the laws of war. Instead what we have is IHL, i.e. the Geneva and Hague conventions etc., and if you are targeting military personnel or other targets of military importance, without any extra cruelty or attacks on civilians, what does it matter if it looks like terror-bombing? If it's allowed by IHL but is terrorism by British or French of German law or whatever, it's allowed. IHL is the actual binding thing.
- jack_tripper 11mo ago
  >IHL is the actual binding thing. And who enforces that? When Netanyahu or Putin break that and bomb children and civilian hospitals, can you stop them by waving the IHL in their face?
  - vagrantJin 11mo ago
    Its a war between two organized armies, however lopsided, with one army recieving support openly to defend against a larger state. Isreal is not only a belligerent state, it openly commits war crimes from every single human war convention in existence, if not outright genocide, what is it?
morshu9001 11mo ago
Both of these sound like non-terror, internationally legal methods. Commanders are military.
uhhhd 11mo ago
Terrorism targets civilians. So no, this isn't terrorism.
- kyo_gisors 11mo ago
  [dead]
- KingMob 11mo ago
  > Terrorism targets civilians. This can be true, but terrorist acts can also be indifferent to the target, which is where the debate here comes from.
Manuel_D 11mo ago
> i.e. intentionally creating a state of terror That's not really a good description of terrorism. Terrorism is going after non-military targets, or at least indiscriminate targeting, for the express purpose of causing terror. If an enemy tank platoon is rolling down the street, the operator of an antitank missile certainly knows that blowing up the lead tank and killing the crew in front of their compatriots is going to instill terror in the rest of the tank platoon. Taking that action anyway is correctly described as an act that intentionally instills terror, but that's not an act of terrorism. War, regardless of if it's waged lawfully, is often terrifying. The way to successfully argue that Israel's pager attack was an act of terror is to show indiscriminate targeting - not merely highlight how terrifying it is to have a bunch of high level officers killed at once. However, investing a lot in the latest information gathering technology sound like the opposite of indiscriminate targeting. I obviously can't speak for how the public writ large would react to our hypothetical. But I can at least speak for myself that if Hezbollah somehow, say, flew a bunch of drones onto IDF bases and killed officers, then that would be an act of war but not an act of terrorism no matter how terrified it might make Israelis feel.
CommanderData 11mo ago
That's very true, when Israel consistently bombed and destroyed almost every hospital in Gaza. The media tried very hard to narrowly frame it this as legitimate. Unfortunately for people, Israel will further be tightening its grip on the world (and has already) by buying and censoring platforms such as TikTok. So there goes one of the main ways news was being shared defying the main stream narrative. These are the facts and you will be labelled for stating them.

by zug_zug 11mo ago

kyboren 11mo ago

I think this was a brilliant operation and perfectly lawful. I also think that if Lebanon (not Hezbollah) were in a state of war with Israel, yes, that would (depending on proportionality and target discrimination) be perfectly legal, too.

Zetaphor 11mo ago
[flagged]
- kyboren 11mo ago
  The most brilliant part about the civilian casualties from this operation is how many fewer of them there were than there would have been with any alternative means available to Israel.
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
ignoramous 11mo ago
> perfectly lawful Are you a lawyer / expert in conflicts? If not, curious how you arrived at this conclusion.
- kyboren 11mo ago
  No, I am not a lawyer. Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Anyway it seems to me that it was: - highly discriminatory - only Hezbollah commanders received these devices - it's an essential piece of military C2 gear so you'd expect they would keep possession of them at all times - the explosive was small enough to mitigate any risk to bystanders - targeted at combatants - likely to achieve (and in fact did achieve) military effects at least proportional to any collateral damage Passes the smell test to me. Would you still have a bone to pick with my credentials if I said that I thought the Dresden firebombings were not brilliant and not perfectly legal? Or the same about US military strikes on suspected drug trafficking vessels?
  - ignoramous 11mo ago
    > Passes the smell test to me Gotcha. Thanks. > Does that preclude my having an opinion on the value and legality of a military strike? Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious. > Would you still have a bone to pick with my credentials if I said that I thought the Dresden firebombings Felt the need to know whether I was mistaking an arm-chair opinion for an expert opinion, is all.
    - SomeUserName432 11mo ago
      > Words mean things. "Perfectly lawful" means just that? And so, I was curious. He did prefix it with "I think", highlighting that "this is my opinion / my interpretation", not that he is issuing a ruling as a judge in an international court.
      - ignoramous 11mo ago
        I read "I think" for "brilliant operation".
  - KingMob 11mo ago
    > No, I am not a lawyer. Does that preclude my having an opinion on the [...] legality of a military strike? Hacker News arrogance in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen. Feel free to also weigh in on Napoleonic currency reform, the proportion of Siberian anime fans, DNA methylation rates of Tyrannosaurs, and anything else you know nothing about. Or maybe I just skipped CS456: "How To Know Everything About Non-Tech Topics" in college.
  - tstrimple 11mo ago
    As long as it's other people's children being killed by Zionist terrorist attacks I'm sure you're perfectly okay with it. Typical conservative response to any tragedy. You'll only ever change your tune when it personally impacts you and then you'll be all confused about how anyone could support that.

dralley 11mo ago

Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be considered terrorism. But it wasn't random devices, it was communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members for their own purposes.

zug_zug 11mo ago
Two things Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. Secondly, even if you only kill generals, that doesn't mean you didn't cause terror for everybody else. Imagine for example that Hezbollah found a way to poison the food for Israel's top X military personnel. It would cause a state of emotional terror for many people in Israel about their food safety for decades most likely, even if they weren't in the military themselves.
- dralley 11mo ago
  When Ukraine assassinates a Russian general with a car bomb, is that "terrorism" or is that just a targeted killing of a military leader during a war? Do you think this is somehow morally problematic beyond the typical standards of war? Do you think that "normal" means of military action, like dropping a 500lb bomb, is less "terroristic" than essentially setting off a firecracker in their face/hands/pocket? Because, like, that's the alternative. If your position is that all forms of war are illegal, then you have the right to that opinion, but it's not a realistic position.
  - mamonster 11mo ago
    >When Ukraine assassinates a Russian general with a car bomb, is that "terrorism" or is that just a targeted killing of a military leader during a war? That depends on when the car detonates. If the car detonates when he and his guard enter it at 6 am near the defense ministry sure. If the car detonates when it is parked in the middle of Moscow at noon and 100 people are around then by pre-2022 standards it would be terrorism. I think instead of these fake whataboutisms we should just admit that there is no universal bar and if it's "our team" then we are willing to change the standard. In this case, we know that when Israel set off these pagers some innocent bystanders got hurt. No need to "whatabout".

kjkjadksj 11mo ago

How are all acts of war not “intentionally creating a state of terror?”

memonkey 11mo ago
i think there are internationally recognized lawful terminology that several institutions and countries recognize that permit the use of "act of war" and "terrorism". but at any given time a country _does_ act of war/terrorism, they likely would deny claims of terrorism if it was recognized as terrorism by said institutions.

rat87 11mo ago

I don't see how. It was intended to paralyze and undermine a militia which it did. A lot of war actions create terror that doesn't make most war terrorism

impossiblefork 11mo ago

I don't whether something is terrorism as something that's relevant for whether it's allowed by the laws of war. Instead what we have is IHL, i.e. the Geneva and Hague conventions etc., and if you are targeting military personnel or other targets of military importance, without any extra cruelty or attacks on civilians, what does it matter if it looks like terror-bombing? If it's allowed by IHL but is terrorism by British or French of German law or whatever, it's allowed. IHL is the actual binding thing.

jack_tripper 11mo ago
>IHL is the actual binding thing. And who enforces that? When Netanyahu or Putin break that and bomb children and civilian hospitals, can you stop them by waving the IHL in their face?
- vagrantJin 11mo ago
  Its a war between two organized armies, however lopsided, with one army recieving support openly to defend against a larger state. Isreal is not only a belligerent state, it openly commits war crimes from every single human war convention in existence, if not outright genocide, what is it?

morshu9001 11mo ago

Both of these sound like non-terror, internationally legal methods. Commanders are military.

uhhhd 11mo ago

Terrorism targets civilians. So no, this isn't terrorism.

kyo_gisors 11mo ago
[dead]
KingMob 11mo ago
> Terrorism targets civilians. This can be true, but terrorist acts can also be indifferent to the target, which is where the debate here comes from.

Manuel_D 11mo ago

> i.e. intentionally creating a state of terror That's not really a good description of terrorism. Terrorism is going after non-military targets, or at least indiscriminate targeting, for the express purpose of causing terror. If an enemy tank platoon is rolling down the street, the operator of an antitank missile certainly knows that blowing up the lead tank and killing the crew in front of their compatriots is going to instill terror in the rest of the tank platoon. Taking that action anyway is correctly described as an act that intentionally instills terror, but that's not an act of terrorism. War, regardless of if it's waged lawfully, is often terrifying. The way to successfully argue that Israel's pager attack was an act of terror is to show indiscriminate targeting - not merely highlight how terrifying it is to have a bunch of high level officers killed at once. However, investing a lot in the latest information gathering technology sound like the opposite of indiscriminate targeting. I obviously can't speak for how the public writ large would react to our hypothetical. But I can at least speak for myself that if Hezbollah somehow, say, flew a bunch of drones onto IDF bases and killed officers, then that would be an act of war but not an act of terrorism no matter how terrified it might make Israelis feel.

CommanderData 11mo ago

That's very true, when Israel consistently bombed and destroyed almost every hospital in Gaza. The media tried very hard to narrowly frame it this as legitimate. Unfortunately for people, Israel will further be tightening its grip on the world (and has already) by buying and censoring platforms such as TikTok. So there goes one of the main ways news was being shared defying the main stream narrative. These are the facts and you will be labelled for stating them.