7 ms·

Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be

by dralley 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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".
    - HappyPanacea 10mo ago
      No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.
      - mamonster 10mo ago
        >No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. "Opportunity to kill in base" is completely vague and varies depending on the military tribunal that will try you. Israel has, AFAIK, never said that there was no other way to kill those people. >At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings Plain disinformation >Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases. This line of thinking justifies bombing (with massive collateral damage) any partisan /resistance movement that is constantly on the move. Which I guess makes sense since that is what Israel did a lot in Gaza.
        raxxorraxor 10mo ago
        What massive collateral damage?
        leksiso 10mo ago
        The posted article states 2800 people were injured in the first attack and 600 in the second. These numbers sound a bit questionable given only tens of people were killed. However, 3400 injured is massive collateral damage if true.
- reissbaker 10mo ago
  Terrorism doesn't mean "anything that makes someone scared," or else all wars would be acts of terrorism. There isn't a universally agreed upon definition, but generally it refers to targeting non-combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism For example, when the Allies tried to assassinate Hitler with a smuggled briefcase bomb during WW2, that wasn't terrorism: that was just regular warfare. Hitler was the leader of Germany and directed its military. Similarly, smuggling pager bombs to members of Hezbollah generally wouldn't qualify as terrorism, since Hezbollah a) is a militia (famously it's the largest non-state militia in the world), and b) was actively fighting a war against Israel — a war that Hezbollah themselves initiated.
  - zug_zug 10mo ago
    So you're arguing if the US declared war on Venezuela, that Venezuela could just use a drone to blow up the US president and that's just how war should work from now on? Because it's only a matter of years until drones get small and stealthy enough that nobody is safe; exploding pagers are a clear first step in this direction.
    - pbalau 10mo ago
      If US and Venezuela are in a state of war, then the head of the US Armed Forces is a legitimate target. Not sure why you have doubts about this.
    - thereisnospork 10mo ago
      I mean of course they could, and should[0] how is that a question? [0] Shouldn't - classic example of a tactical win being a strategic blunder. Killing the American president and would solidify American public support for the war - which would probably be undesirable in the balance.
    - zoklet-enjoyer 10mo ago
      The US and Israel do the equivalent of that and have been for years. An assassination is an assassination. The weapon makes little difference.
- hersko 10mo ago
  > Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. You know terrorism doesn't mean people were terrorized, right? Surely you understand that.
- impossiblefork 10mo ago
  No. Generals are always legitimate military targets.
  - zug_zug 10mo ago
    So let me just understand your position here. Suppose the US declares war on Venezuela. Suppose a venezuelan living in America just looks up a bunch of US generals addresses online, and then sets all their houses on fire killing them in their sleep in their McMansions in suburbia. Are you saying that's a valid military strike, and therefore can't possibly be terrorism? Suppose this person is so successful he kills 1,000 and generals and numerous quit their jobs and move in fear for their life, just to really clarify what you're arguing here.
    - bjelkeman-again 10mo ago
      I think it is a valid military strike if a Venezuelan soldier does it on an order. Military targets where a strike are in danger of killing civilians are a hard judgment call. Generally one should never risk targeting civilians. Military law is a complex subject and officers spend quite a lot of time being educated in it. Here is a Swedish defence college course on it. https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/courses/international-law-of-military-operations.html https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/courses/int...
    - impossiblefork 10mo ago
      I'm pretty sure even that is allowed, yes. Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.
      - MrMorden 10mo ago
        If he wants to be treated as a POW rather than a spy should he be captured.
    - adolph 10mo ago
      > Suppose a venezuelan living in America just looks up a bunch of US generals addresses online, and then sets all their houses on fire killing them in their sleep in their McMansions in suburbia. I don't think the analogy is apt. Members of Hezbollah do not occupy a positions of similar relationship to Lebanon as US generals does to the US. As far as I've heard, flag officers and others are escorted by personal security for an attack of any sort, such as the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. [0] Moving past that, a civilian citizen of Venezuela in the US who performed actions against US military targets would not be a valid military strike since that person would not be an identifiable member or Venezuela's military. It would more akin to a spy or assassin. Below is an excerpt from an article representing a US-centric view of history [1]. But the right to kill one’s enemy during war was not considered wholly unregulated. During the 16th century, Balthazar Ayala agreed with Saint Augustine’s contention that it “is indifferent from the standpoint of justice whether trickery be used” in killing the enemy, but then distinguished trickery from “fraud and snares” (The Law and Duties of War and Military Discipline). Similarly, Alberico Gentili, writing in the next century, found treachery “so contrary to the law of God and of Nature, that although I may kill a man, I may not do so by treachery.” He warned that treacherous killing would invite reprisal (Three Books on the Law of War). And Hugo Grotius likewise explained that “a distinction must be made between assassins who violate an express or tacit obligation of good faith, as subjects resorting to violence against a king, vassals against a lord, soldiers against him whom they serve, those also who have been received as suppliants or strangers or deserters, against those who have received them; and such as are held by no bond of good faith” (On the Law of War and Peace). 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting 1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/ https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/ Edit: /Hamas/Hezbollah/
- tptacek 10mo ago
  No, generals in an operational military force are definitionally combatants, and cannot in fact be "terrorized".
  - sysguest 10mo ago
    this why is that guy trying to fight against dictionary-definition of "terrorism"? where did "intentionally creating a state of terror == terrorism" come from? making up word definitions to win arguments?
- raxxorraxor 10mo ago
  Hezbollah is an organization that tries to destroy Israel. If any law doesn't have an answer to that problem, it isn't worth to discuss legality. But that isn't the problem here, luckily. It was an extremely targeted operation, generals are military target and know the risks of war. A war that they started in this case.
- lm28469 10mo ago
  > Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. This isn't part of any modern definition of terrorism, otherwise war is terrorism, stalking is terrorism, bullying is terrorism &c.
jackling 10mo ago
The issue is that Israel has no idea where those pagers were at the time of the attack, civilians were directly hurt by the explosions: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-pager-attack-on-hezbollah-last-year-struggle-to-recover https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-page...
- hersko 10mo ago
  You think you are not allowed to do a military strike if civilians may be hurt?
  - jackling 10mo ago
    Your comment is nonsense. What do you mean by “allowed”? Who is enforcing the rules of what is “allowed” and what isn’t? The fact is that Israel carried out an attack that severely harmed civilians. The question is whether it was targeted or whether it constitutes terrorism. My claim is that since Israel could not have possibly known who was in possession of the pagers at the time of the attack, and since the attack occurred regardless of who was nearby—detonating all pagers in civilian-occupied areas—Israel did, in effect, target civilians. If you attack a military target that is surrounded by civilians, and that attack injures or kills those civilians, then those civilians were also targeted. Do you think all that matters is who the primary target was, and that as long as Israel decides the civilian casualties were “worth it,” the decision is moral?
    - rat87 10mo ago
      > did, in effect, target civilians. That's ridiculous > If you attack a military target that is surrounded by civilians, and that attack injures or kills those civilians, then those civilians were also targeted. They are not targeted. You could say that depending on number of innocent casualties or the likely number the attacked could be reckless and/or disproportionate in attacking in a way that was likely to cause such injuries. In certain cases you could claim they broke the laws of war although the laws of war are practical (they're not meant to prevent all deaths of civilians, the countries who agreed to them didn't intentionally make it impossible to fight including in defense). And even if something is not a war crime you could still claim it might be immoral but that is a more complex argument.
ignoramous 10mo ago
> Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. I mean, you're not wrong: the State seeks monopoly on violence; the kind of damages it can inflict, where, when and however it wants. Everyone else is ... a terrorist, and whatever they do is ... terrorism. > communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah Replace "Hezbollah" with "the US Govt" and you'll arrive at some answer. Btw, off-duty / non-combat personnel aren't deemed to be "at war".
- tptacek 10mo ago
  The reason foreign military organizations don't routinely target active duty US military generals isn't that they're worried about being dragged into some mostly-fictitious courtroom to answer for their misdeeds. It's that the United States armed forces will very quickly reduce their entire organization, and much of the surrounding area, to its combustion products. There aren't a lot of opportunities in life you get to use the word "annihilatory"; this is one of them. And in the immortal words of William Munny out of Missouri: "deserve's" got nothing to do with it.
  - ignoramous 10mo ago
    > US military ... worried about being dragged into some mostly-fictitious courtroom to answer for their misdeeds... Acutely aware of this fact, yeah. > There aren't a lot of opportunities in life you get to use the word "annihilatory"; this is one of them. Not wrong. None of the former great empires that fell were as military capable as the super powers of the modern era. > And in the immortal words of William Munny out of Missouri: "deserve's" got nothing to do with it. True. Some on the Left have extreme take on "Nation States" for this reason: One was to challenge the thesis that nationalism and colonialism are two separate things — that nationalism is the good side, colonialism the bad side; that nationalism came first, colonialism later, or vice versa. I wanted to show that they were twins joined at the hip. And I also wanted to show that from the outset, the nation-state project could not be achieved without ethnic cleansing and extreme violence. This could be seen in the expulsion of Jews and Muslims [from the Iberian Peninsula], and that soon led to a conflict between states, because each state had an official majority — the nation it claimed to represent — and its minority, or minorities. The human rights paradigm focuses on the perpetrators of violence. It wants to identify them individually so that we can hold them individually accountable. It does not look for the beneficiaries of that violence. Beneficiaries are not necessarily perpetrators. To address beneficiaries, you need to identify the issues around which violence is mobilized ... The Idea of the Nation-State Is Synonymous With Genocide: A conversation with political theorist Mahmood Mamdani (2024), https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/mahmood-mamdani-nation-state-interview/ https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/mahmood-mamdani-na...
sirfz 10mo ago
[flagged]
- TiredOfLife 10mo ago
  How is communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members not a directed attack?
  - sirfz 10mo ago
    Hezbollah is an organization consisting of civilian infrastructure besides its military wing (political party, media, hospitals/medical centers, schools, banking, etc) . These devices were distributed amongst different personnel of whom nobody knows their military activity and can safely be assumed it's highly likely they're civilians (hence the randomness of this, not targetted at all). Besides the fact that these targets weren't in active duty but rather targeted in their homes, workplaces, and other random whereabouts (supermarkets, playgrounds, etc) again emphasising how random and not targetted any of it is and the danger it imposes on others (physical or psychological) around them. It's just insane.
    - tptacek 10mo ago
      The pagers had strictly military use.
- neoromantique 10mo ago
  [flagged]
marcosdumay 10mo ago
The Irish terrorists that were mostly the responsible to put word "terrorism" into political discourse targeted almost exclusively politicians and military. And targeted way better than that Israel attack.
blks 10mo ago
Not only military leadership was killed, there was a significant amount of civilians being harmed. Even if you drop a bomb to target a military personnel, but you drop it in the middle of busy city, this will be a war crime, as you didn’t do anything to avoid civilian casualties, and disregarded them.

by dralley 10mo ago

zug_zug 10mo 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 10mo 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 10mo 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".
  - HappyPanacea 10mo ago
    No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.
    - mamonster 10mo ago
      >No it wouldn't, as long as the target is military and you didn't have opportunity to killed him in base it is fine. "Opportunity to kill in base" is completely vague and varies depending on the military tribunal that will try you. Israel has, AFAIK, never said that there was no other way to kill those people. >At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings Plain disinformation >Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases. This line of thinking justifies bombing (with massive collateral damage) any partisan /resistance movement that is constantly on the move. Which I guess makes sense since that is what Israel did a lot in Gaza.
      - raxxorraxor 10mo ago
        What massive collateral damage?
        leksiso 10mo ago
        The posted article states 2800 people were injured in the first attack and 600 in the second. These numbers sound a bit questionable given only tens of people were killed. However, 3400 injured is massive collateral damage if true.
reissbaker 10mo ago
Terrorism doesn't mean "anything that makes someone scared," or else all wars would be acts of terrorism. There isn't a universally agreed upon definition, but generally it refers to targeting non-combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism For example, when the Allies tried to assassinate Hitler with a smuggled briefcase bomb during WW2, that wasn't terrorism: that was just regular warfare. Hitler was the leader of Germany and directed its military. Similarly, smuggling pager bombs to members of Hezbollah generally wouldn't qualify as terrorism, since Hezbollah a) is a militia (famously it's the largest non-state militia in the world), and b) was actively fighting a war against Israel — a war that Hezbollah themselves initiated.
- zug_zug 10mo ago
  So you're arguing if the US declared war on Venezuela, that Venezuela could just use a drone to blow up the US president and that's just how war should work from now on? Because it's only a matter of years until drones get small and stealthy enough that nobody is safe; exploding pagers are a clear first step in this direction.
  - pbalau 10mo ago
    If US and Venezuela are in a state of war, then the head of the US Armed Forces is a legitimate target. Not sure why you have doubts about this.
  - thereisnospork 10mo ago
    I mean of course they could, and should[0] how is that a question? [0] Shouldn't - classic example of a tactical win being a strategic blunder. Killing the American president and would solidify American public support for the war - which would probably be undesirable in the balance.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 10mo ago
    The US and Israel do the equivalent of that and have been for years. An assassination is an assassination. The weapon makes little difference.
hersko 10mo ago
> Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. You know terrorism doesn't mean people were terrorized, right? Surely you understand that.
impossiblefork 10mo ago
No. Generals are always legitimate military targets.
- zug_zug 10mo ago
  So let me just understand your position here. Suppose the US declares war on Venezuela. Suppose a venezuelan living in America just looks up a bunch of US generals addresses online, and then sets all their houses on fire killing them in their sleep in their McMansions in suburbia. Are you saying that's a valid military strike, and therefore can't possibly be terrorism? Suppose this person is so successful he kills 1,000 and generals and numerous quit their jobs and move in fear for their life, just to really clarify what you're arguing here.
  - bjelkeman-again 10mo ago
    I think it is a valid military strike if a Venezuelan soldier does it on an order. Military targets where a strike are in danger of killing civilians are a hard judgment call. Generally one should never risk targeting civilians. Military law is a complex subject and officers spend quite a lot of time being educated in it. Here is a Swedish defence college course on it. https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/courses/international-law-of-military-operations.html https://www.fhs.se/en/swedish-defence-university/courses/int...
  - impossiblefork 10mo ago
    I'm pretty sure even that is allowed, yes. Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.
    - MrMorden 10mo ago
      If he wants to be treated as a POW rather than a spy should he be captured.
  - adolph 10mo ago
    > Suppose a venezuelan living in America just looks up a bunch of US generals addresses online, and then sets all their houses on fire killing them in their sleep in their McMansions in suburbia. I don't think the analogy is apt. Members of Hezbollah do not occupy a positions of similar relationship to Lebanon as US generals does to the US. As far as I've heard, flag officers and others are escorted by personal security for an attack of any sort, such as the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. [0] Moving past that, a civilian citizen of Venezuela in the US who performed actions against US military targets would not be a valid military strike since that person would not be an identifiable member or Venezuela's military. It would more akin to a spy or assassin. Below is an excerpt from an article representing a US-centric view of history [1]. But the right to kill one’s enemy during war was not considered wholly unregulated. During the 16th century, Balthazar Ayala agreed with Saint Augustine’s contention that it “is indifferent from the standpoint of justice whether trickery be used” in killing the enemy, but then distinguished trickery from “fraud and snares” (The Law and Duties of War and Military Discipline). Similarly, Alberico Gentili, writing in the next century, found treachery “so contrary to the law of God and of Nature, that although I may kill a man, I may not do so by treachery.” He warned that treacherous killing would invite reprisal (Three Books on the Law of War). And Hugo Grotius likewise explained that “a distinction must be made between assassins who violate an express or tacit obligation of good faith, as subjects resorting to violence against a king, vassals against a lord, soldiers against him whom they serve, those also who have been received as suppliants or strangers or deserters, against those who have received them; and such as are held by no bond of good faith” (On the Law of War and Peace). 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting 1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/ https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/ Edit: /Hamas/Hezbollah/
tptacek 10mo ago
No, generals in an operational military force are definitionally combatants, and cannot in fact be "terrorized".
- sysguest 10mo ago
  this why is that guy trying to fight against dictionary-definition of "terrorism"? where did "intentionally creating a state of terror == terrorism" come from? making up word definitions to win arguments?
raxxorraxor 10mo ago
Hezbollah is an organization that tries to destroy Israel. If any law doesn't have an answer to that problem, it isn't worth to discuss legality. But that isn't the problem here, luckily. It was an extremely targeted operation, generals are military target and know the risks of war. A war that they started in this case.
lm28469 10mo ago
> Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. This isn't part of any modern definition of terrorism, otherwise war is terrorism, stalking is terrorism, bullying is terrorism &c.

jackling 10mo ago

The issue is that Israel has no idea where those pagers were at the time of the attack, civilians were directly hurt by the explosions: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-pager-attack-on-hezbollah-last-year-struggle-to-recover https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-page...

hersko 10mo ago
You think you are not allowed to do a military strike if civilians may be hurt?
- jackling 10mo ago
  Your comment is nonsense. What do you mean by “allowed”? Who is enforcing the rules of what is “allowed” and what isn’t? The fact is that Israel carried out an attack that severely harmed civilians. The question is whether it was targeted or whether it constitutes terrorism. My claim is that since Israel could not have possibly known who was in possession of the pagers at the time of the attack, and since the attack occurred regardless of who was nearby—detonating all pagers in civilian-occupied areas—Israel did, in effect, target civilians. If you attack a military target that is surrounded by civilians, and that attack injures or kills those civilians, then those civilians were also targeted. Do you think all that matters is who the primary target was, and that as long as Israel decides the civilian casualties were “worth it,” the decision is moral?
  - rat87 10mo ago
    > did, in effect, target civilians. That's ridiculous > If you attack a military target that is surrounded by civilians, and that attack injures or kills those civilians, then those civilians were also targeted. They are not targeted. You could say that depending on number of innocent casualties or the likely number the attacked could be reckless and/or disproportionate in attacking in a way that was likely to cause such injuries. In certain cases you could claim they broke the laws of war although the laws of war are practical (they're not meant to prevent all deaths of civilians, the countries who agreed to them didn't intentionally make it impossible to fight including in defense). And even if something is not a war crime you could still claim it might be immoral but that is a more complex argument.

ignoramous 10mo ago

> Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. I mean, you're not wrong: the State seeks monopoly on violence; the kind of damages it can inflict, where, when and however it wants. Everyone else is ... a terrorist, and whatever they do is ... terrorism. > communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah Replace "Hezbollah" with "the US Govt" and you'll arrive at some answer. Btw, off-duty / non-combat personnel aren't deemed to be "at war".

tptacek 10mo ago
The reason foreign military organizations don't routinely target active duty US military generals isn't that they're worried about being dragged into some mostly-fictitious courtroom to answer for their misdeeds. It's that the United States armed forces will very quickly reduce their entire organization, and much of the surrounding area, to its combustion products. There aren't a lot of opportunities in life you get to use the word "annihilatory"; this is one of them. And in the immortal words of William Munny out of Missouri: "deserve's" got nothing to do with it.
- ignoramous 10mo ago
  > US military ... worried about being dragged into some mostly-fictitious courtroom to answer for their misdeeds... Acutely aware of this fact, yeah. > There aren't a lot of opportunities in life you get to use the word "annihilatory"; this is one of them. Not wrong. None of the former great empires that fell were as military capable as the super powers of the modern era. > And in the immortal words of William Munny out of Missouri: "deserve's" got nothing to do with it. True. Some on the Left have extreme take on "Nation States" for this reason: One was to challenge the thesis that nationalism and colonialism are two separate things — that nationalism is the good side, colonialism the bad side; that nationalism came first, colonialism later, or vice versa. I wanted to show that they were twins joined at the hip. And I also wanted to show that from the outset, the nation-state project could not be achieved without ethnic cleansing and extreme violence. This could be seen in the expulsion of Jews and Muslims [from the Iberian Peninsula], and that soon led to a conflict between states, because each state had an official majority — the nation it claimed to represent — and its minority, or minorities. The human rights paradigm focuses on the perpetrators of violence. It wants to identify them individually so that we can hold them individually accountable. It does not look for the beneficiaries of that violence. Beneficiaries are not necessarily perpetrators. To address beneficiaries, you need to identify the issues around which violence is mobilized ... The Idea of the Nation-State Is Synonymous With Genocide: A conversation with political theorist Mahmood Mamdani (2024), https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/mahmood-mamdani-nation-state-interview/ https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/mahmood-mamdani-na...

sirfz 10mo ago

[flagged]

TiredOfLife 10mo ago
How is communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members not a directed attack?
- sirfz 10mo ago
  Hezbollah is an organization consisting of civilian infrastructure besides its military wing (political party, media, hospitals/medical centers, schools, banking, etc) . These devices were distributed amongst different personnel of whom nobody knows their military activity and can safely be assumed it's highly likely they're civilians (hence the randomness of this, not targetted at all). Besides the fact that these targets weren't in active duty but rather targeted in their homes, workplaces, and other random whereabouts (supermarkets, playgrounds, etc) again emphasising how random and not targetted any of it is and the danger it imposes on others (physical or psychological) around them. It's just insane.
  - tptacek 10mo ago
    The pagers had strictly military use.
neoromantique 10mo ago
[flagged]

marcosdumay 10mo ago

The Irish terrorists that were mostly the responsible to put word "terrorism" into political discourse targeted almost exclusively politicians and military. And targeted way better than that Israel attack.

blks 10mo ago

Not only military leadership was killed, there was a significant amount of civilians being harmed. Even if you drop a bomb to target a military personnel, but you drop it in the middle of busy city, this will be a war crime, as you didn’t do anything to avoid civilian casualties, and disregarded them.