5 ms·

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 eve

by 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".
  - HappyPanacea 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
        What massive collateral damage?
        leksiso 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
> Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. You know terrorism doesn't mean people were terrorized, right? Surely you understand that.
impossiblefork 11mo ago
No. Generals are always legitimate military targets.
- zug_zug 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
    I'm pretty sure even that is allowed, yes. Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.
    - MrMorden 11mo ago
      If he wants to be treated as a POW rather than a spy should he be captured.
  - adolph 11mo 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 11mo ago
No, generals in an operational military force are definitionally combatants, and cannot in fact be "terrorized".
- sysguest 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.

by zug_zug 11mo ago

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".
- HappyPanacea 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
      What massive collateral damage?
      - leksiso 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago

> Firstly, generals, like anybody else can be terrorized. You know terrorism doesn't mean people were terrorized, right? Surely you understand that.

impossiblefork 11mo ago

No. Generals are always legitimate military targets.

zug_zug 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo ago
  I'm pretty sure even that is allowed, yes. Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.
  - MrMorden 11mo ago
    If he wants to be treated as a POW rather than a spy should he be captured.
- adolph 11mo 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 11mo ago

No, generals in an operational military force are definitionally combatants, and cannot in fact be "terrorized".

sysguest 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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.