5 ms·
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time.
by cess11 11mo ago
This was about as targeted as anti-personnel landmines, but spread out in civilian areas and detonated without any knowledge of their surroundings at the time.
Because mines are untargeted and designed to maim without discrimination as to who they might hurt there is a long running effort to prohibit their use.
- raxxorraxor 11mo agoNo, the messengers were specifically delivered to Hezbollah leadership. It is not even closely comparable.
- cess11 11mo agoThey were widely distributed and there was no way for the israelis to know where they were when they detonated them, which they likely did out of desperation and not because they had good reason to believe they were in such and such a position. It is fucking grim to incessantly defend state terrorism.
- raxxorraxor 11mo agoYou don't seem to have an inch of a problem with terrorist, islamist militants that not only terrorise Israel, they also terrorise Lebanon. Ask the Arab League. Even they define them as terrorists. Something here is grim indeed and it is not restricted to some regretable educational deficiencies.
- dlubarov 11mo agoHezbollah pagers aren't randomly lying around though, they're normally attached to Hezbollah members. These were also much smaller than any anti personnel mine. This was far more targeted than, say, any artillery strike that a commander could possibly order. Targeted doesn't mean it's impossible to harm something else. That's possible with any weapon, and far more likely with larger munitions like artillery shells.
- cess11 11mo agoHezbollah members include medical personnel, teachers, politicians and so on. It is a much larger group of organisations than the armed factions. I'm not sure what you're after. What the israelis did would have been a worse crime if it actually was targeted. Is that your point?
- dlubarov 11mo agoIt's not clear that Israel just set off all Hezbollah issued beepers; we don't know what methodology they used. We can guess based on reported casualties, but we don't know which casualties were involved with Hezbollah's military operations. > What the israelis did would have been a worse crime if it actually was targeted. It was certainly targeted, it just also had collateral damage, i.e. harm to non-targets. What you have Israel do instead? Suppose they struck Hezbollah fighters with conventional artillery. They're not sitting around in open fields, so there still would have been collateral damage. Would you again maintain that the strikes were "untargeted" because there was collateral damage? By this unusual definition, it seems impossible to do a "targeted" strike at least in any urban environment.
- cess11 11mo agoIsrael should obviously have ended the occupations, payed reparations and prepared for the return of refugees. The IDF doesn't give a shit about "collateral damage". They mainly attack civilian targets. That's the purpose of the organisation, to make life for indigenous populations in the vicinity of the state of Israel impossible. Destroy their agriculture and water sources, murder their children, displace them, destroy their homes, occupy the land, pretend to be a victim if someone fights back. Then sign some contracts every now and then and don't abide by them while claiming that the other party is the one who doesn't. This has been ongoing for about a century, it was how the Haganah, Irgun, Stern gang operated. This is why the IDF has such a bad army, they aren't trained for combat and hardly ever have to experience it. Instead they're used for genocidal atrocities against unarmed civilians.