6 ms·

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/news

by 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.
    - jackling 10mo ago
      I agree with your last point, but tbh, the exact idea of "targeted" is splitting hairs IMO. I'm not arguing that civilians were the primary target, but not caring that they were around, and being fine with their death as long as the combatant was dead, in my view makes it seem that Israel's enemies are not the combatants of Hezbollah, but generally just the Lebanese people. If someone droped a nuke on a city to kill 1 person, does it matter who that person was specifically targeting? Does the distinction if his intended target matter at all? I would think you and I would agree that obviously it doesn't matter at that point, but then I ask, at what point does that distinction matter?
      - rat87 10mo ago
        It's not splitting hairs it gets to the point when people falsely accuse them of every single thing in the book. Weapons have always been imprecise but things that don't have any benefit to the war effort and target innocent civilian deaths are war crimes. You may ask how much the difference matters morally(it still does matter a lot intent it rule based vs consequences based morality systems I'd argue for somewhere in between) but yes targeting matters when it comes to usually false claims of crimes They do care about not killing civilians the question is how much? And is that enough? There will almost never be any operation near cities without civilian casualties. This particular operation was an extremely Targeted operation that included tricking Hezbollah into selling pagers meant for Hezbollah internal military use and only deploying small explosions minimizing any unnecessary casualties. It's not a very good piece of rhetoric asking about nukes because Israel actually has nukes. They didn't use them. They have carried out other heavier strikes on Lebanon that had worse ratios but were justified by military targets such as Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. Your suggestion also seems to totally not understand how Israelis view Lebanon. Until recently and still Lebanon does not control violence within it's borders. Hezbollah (a militia/terrorist group that takes orders from Iran) was more powerful then the Lebanese army and decided what happened on the ground. Iran which had a countdown clock counting down to the destruction of Israel. Of course they were supposed to be disarmed after the Lebanese but unsurprisingly the UN resolution didn't have any effect so when they attacked and threatened to invade Israel did what they could to take them out. Israel would love to have peace with Lebanon but that's not likely if Iran and Hezbollah have anything to do with it.
tptacek 10mo ago
Israel had in fact very clear intelligence that the specific pagers they were detonating were overwhelmingly going to be in the custody of combatants. This was very probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years. That's not a value judgement; it's a descriptive claim.
- jackling 10mo ago
  Twelve civilians killed and 4,000 injured does not indicate a precise attack. There is no credible figure for the number of combatants killed or injured. The Times of Israel reported that 1,500 fighters were injured. Taking these two data points together, a majority of those injured were civilians rather than combatants. Where are you getting the claim that this was “probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years”? That is a far-reaching assertion, especially given the lack of sources. You say this is not a value judgment but a descriptive claim, yet the claim does not appear to be backed by facts. (The 4000 figure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device... (The 1500 figure) https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-year-on-some-lebanese-bystanders-hurt-in-israels-pager-attack-still-recovering/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-year-on-some-lebanese-bystan... (General HRW source) https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
  - tptacek 10mo ago
    Right, if in fact 1500 Hezbollah fighters were injured, any claim that over 1500 noncombatants were injured is suspicious. We have video footage of the explosions (along with a directional sense of the wounded vs. KIA count of the strike). It is not plausible that more noncombatants were injured than combatants, given the pagers were strictly military comms devices.
    - jackling 10mo ago
      Both the 1500 and 4000 number were confirmed by Lebanon, and no reputable watch organization has credibly disputed them, you're not citing evidence just conjecture on how you believe everything went down due to a relative small bits of information. > along with a directional sense of the wounded vs. KIA count of the strike I am not sure what this means. To add, you're making it impossible to argue anything against your claim. We're discussing how the pagers hurt civilians and if they were properly targetting combatants. You're saying no matter what, since you know the pager was targetting combatants, the evidence that civilians were hurt must be false. Your logic circular.
tstrimple 10mo ago
Zionists don't care about civilian casualties. It's extremely well documented. They even defend the explicit rape of their "prisoners". They will just explain them away as Hamas sympathizers and people will shrug their shoulders and move on.
- richardfeynman 10mo ago
  I, like roughly 90% of the world's jews, am a zionist and I care about civilian casualties. In fact, I don't know a single zionist who doesn't care about civilian casualties. You just made up this racist nonsense, and your comment is totally inappropriate for HN. What is true is that I'd deny allegations about civilian casualties that I think are false, but that would be because I think they're false, nothing to do with zionism.
  - tstrimple 10mo ago
    Sure you do. Just like MAGA voters who are suffering from the decisions from their vote "didn't vote for this". Except you explicitly did. Zionism necessarily removes land and homes from people to carve out a "safe space" for Jews without any consideration for the generations you're fucking over. Just like you conveniently ignore the decades of "settlers" taking over other people's land. Just like you ignore the destruction of Palestinian wells and hospitals. Just like you ignore the rape of prisoners and the celebration among Zionists for it. It's a nasty belief system that puts Jews above other humans. It is explicitly bigoted and xenophobic and it is proudly announced and broadcast throughout Israeli society. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinia... > A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to "terrorists" in custody. > Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate, "to insert a stick into a person's rectum?" > "Yes!" he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. "If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!" That is what you are defending. It's fucking disgusting.

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.
  - jackling 10mo ago
    I agree with your last point, but tbh, the exact idea of "targeted" is splitting hairs IMO. I'm not arguing that civilians were the primary target, but not caring that they were around, and being fine with their death as long as the combatant was dead, in my view makes it seem that Israel's enemies are not the combatants of Hezbollah, but generally just the Lebanese people. If someone droped a nuke on a city to kill 1 person, does it matter who that person was specifically targeting? Does the distinction if his intended target matter at all? I would think you and I would agree that obviously it doesn't matter at that point, but then I ask, at what point does that distinction matter?
    - rat87 10mo ago
      It's not splitting hairs it gets to the point when people falsely accuse them of every single thing in the book. Weapons have always been imprecise but things that don't have any benefit to the war effort and target innocent civilian deaths are war crimes. You may ask how much the difference matters morally(it still does matter a lot intent it rule based vs consequences based morality systems I'd argue for somewhere in between) but yes targeting matters when it comes to usually false claims of crimes They do care about not killing civilians the question is how much? And is that enough? There will almost never be any operation near cities without civilian casualties. This particular operation was an extremely Targeted operation that included tricking Hezbollah into selling pagers meant for Hezbollah internal military use and only deploying small explosions minimizing any unnecessary casualties. It's not a very good piece of rhetoric asking about nukes because Israel actually has nukes. They didn't use them. They have carried out other heavier strikes on Lebanon that had worse ratios but were justified by military targets such as Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. Your suggestion also seems to totally not understand how Israelis view Lebanon. Until recently and still Lebanon does not control violence within it's borders. Hezbollah (a militia/terrorist group that takes orders from Iran) was more powerful then the Lebanese army and decided what happened on the ground. Iran which had a countdown clock counting down to the destruction of Israel. Of course they were supposed to be disarmed after the Lebanese but unsurprisingly the UN resolution didn't have any effect so when they attacked and threatened to invade Israel did what they could to take them out. Israel would love to have peace with Lebanon but that's not likely if Iran and Hezbollah have anything to do with it.

tptacek 10mo ago

Israel had in fact very clear intelligence that the specific pagers they were detonating were overwhelmingly going to be in the custody of combatants. This was very probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years. That's not a value judgement; it's a descriptive claim.

jackling 10mo ago
Twelve civilians killed and 4,000 injured does not indicate a precise attack. There is no credible figure for the number of combatants killed or injured. The Times of Israel reported that 1,500 fighters were injured. Taking these two data points together, a majority of those injured were civilians rather than combatants. Where are you getting the claim that this was “probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years”? That is a far-reaching assertion, especially given the lack of sources. You say this is not a value judgment but a descriptive claim, yet the claim does not appear to be backed by facts. (The 4000 figure) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device... (The 1500 figure) https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-year-on-some-lebanese-bystanders-hurt-in-israels-pager-attack-still-recovering/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.timesofisrael.com/a-year-on-some-lebanese-bystan... (General HRW source) https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers-harmed-hezbollah-civilians?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/09/18/lebanon-exploding-pagers...
- tptacek 10mo ago
  Right, if in fact 1500 Hezbollah fighters were injured, any claim that over 1500 noncombatants were injured is suspicious. We have video footage of the explosions (along with a directional sense of the wounded vs. KIA count of the strike). It is not plausible that more noncombatants were injured than combatants, given the pagers were strictly military comms devices.
  - jackling 10mo ago
    Both the 1500 and 4000 number were confirmed by Lebanon, and no reputable watch organization has credibly disputed them, you're not citing evidence just conjecture on how you believe everything went down due to a relative small bits of information. > along with a directional sense of the wounded vs. KIA count of the strike I am not sure what this means. To add, you're making it impossible to argue anything against your claim. We're discussing how the pagers hurt civilians and if they were properly targetting combatants. You're saying no matter what, since you know the pager was targetting combatants, the evidence that civilians were hurt must be false. Your logic circular.

tstrimple 10mo ago

Zionists don't care about civilian casualties. It's extremely well documented. They even defend the explicit rape of their "prisoners". They will just explain them away as Hamas sympathizers and people will shrug their shoulders and move on.

richardfeynman 10mo ago
I, like roughly 90% of the world's jews, am a zionist and I care about civilian casualties. In fact, I don't know a single zionist who doesn't care about civilian casualties. You just made up this racist nonsense, and your comment is totally inappropriate for HN. What is true is that I'd deny allegations about civilian casualties that I think are false, but that would be because I think they're false, nothing to do with zionism.
- tstrimple 10mo ago
  Sure you do. Just like MAGA voters who are suffering from the decisions from their vote "didn't vote for this". Except you explicitly did. Zionism necessarily removes land and homes from people to carve out a "safe space" for Jews without any consideration for the generations you're fucking over. Just like you conveniently ignore the decades of "settlers" taking over other people's land. Just like you ignore the destruction of Palestinian wells and hospitals. Just like you ignore the rape of prisoners and the celebration among Zionists for it. It's a nasty belief system that puts Jews above other humans. It is explicitly bigoted and xenophobic and it is proudly announced and broadcast throughout Israeli society. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinian-prisoner-alleged-rape-sde-teinman-abuse-protest/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-hamas-war-idf-palestinia... > A member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, speaking Monday at a meeting of lawmakers, justified the rape and abuse of Palestinian prisoners, shouting angrily at colleagues questioning the alleged behavior that anything was legitimate to do to "terrorists" in custody. > Lawmaker Hanoch Milwidsky was asked as he defended the alleged abuse whether it was legitimate, "to insert a stick into a person's rectum?" > "Yes!" he shouted in reply to his fellow parliamentarian. "If he is a Nukhba [Hamas militant], everything is legitimate to do! Everything!" That is what you are defending. It's fucking disgusting.