dlubarov

11 ms·

151.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
I didn't say that Amnesty used the term. If bombardment of population centers, with no targeting of military assets, isn't terrorism than what is?
152.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Did they ever claim otherwise? They say "Zivver scans the content of every email" prominently on the front page. The flow seems to be TLS to Zivver first, scanning, then encryption. If all it takes to convince us that a communicat
153.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
What are you saying actually happened? It sounds like the concern is that in a certain context, messages are cloud hosted instead of client-side e2e encrypted? Did anyone even claim otherwise? How is this different from suggesting Netflix w
154.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Suppose we believe all captions in your links, so for example we'll assume that guy in shorts and flip flops was some sort of “spy balloon manager.” It wouldn’t matter, because once you perform terrorist attacks, you’re still a terrori
155.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
There’s no question that Hezbollah’s bombardment was terrorism. It would be absurd to claim that they were targeting military assets when they routinely use unguided rockets which aren’t capable of doing so. Israel had every right to enter
156.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Ended the occupations meaning what, never enter Lebanon? What do you think Israel should have done about Hezbollah’s terrorism, just tolerate it and never let Israelis return to their homes in the north? Apart from that it seems like you’re
157.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
A parent comment claimed it was the most targeted “operation”, not “strike”. Some small individual strikes have 100% perfect targeting; I think the claim was about large scale operations like artillery barrages or aerial campaigns. (I think
158.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
It'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
159.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
It's not nitpicking - what the court is entirely different from what you stated (though it's understandable as a lot of sources misrepresent it). The court can issue orders without finding any sort of violation, which is what happ
160.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
ICRC is not really claiming that those examples are indiscriminate, they're giving examples of weapons that might arguably or sometimes be considered indiscriminate. Some booby traps might fall into that category, but this isn't a
161.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Hezbollah 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 c
162.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
If I dive bomb an enemy position, knowing that it's dark and windy and I might end up hitting something else, that's still a targeted operation. Same deal with the pager operation. > So I target them by dropping a nuke on NYC.
163.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Tiny explosives are certainly not the sort of inherently indiscriminate weapons ICRC refers to. You might want to read the article you linked to, which uses nuclear weapons as the main example. The difference in energy released by Israel&#x
164.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Projectiles hit the wrong target all the time. Especially when we get into artillery or air strikes where there's no line of sight to a uniformed soldier, commanders can't be sure if they're going to hit the intended target.
165.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
None of these have anything to do with what you cited above, which was ICRC's summary of customary law about inherently indiscriminate weapons. Your first and second links here are examining entirely different challenges to the operati
166.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
> ICJ found the accusation plausible This is still not accurate. What ICJ found plausible was "some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection". The then-president even clarified explicitly tha
167.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
Targeting Hezbollah operatives is certainly targeting, yes. The fact that there was still some nonzero harm to civilians, despite the targeting, does not refute that. Targeting doesn't imply zero collateral damage, which is an impossib
168.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
I don't see how that would apply at all. These aren't nuclear weapons that take out entire populations, these are tiny munitions used to target Hezbollah operatives.
169.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
ICJ has made no such finding. They will probably making a ruling on genocide allegations in the coming years; they certain have not made one yet. The opinions they've issued so far are here https://www.icj-cij.org/decis
170.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
How is it an indiscriminate attack? It targeted Hezbollah operatives, not random Lebanese people.
171.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
The topic at hand is a military operation in Lebanon, not Gaza.
172.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
The principle of proportionality is explicitly about expectations, i.e. expected military advantage vs expected collateral damage. You seem to be holding Israel to an impossible standard of guaranteeing zero collateral damage, which IHL doe
173.
by dlubarov 10mo ago
In Zcash a quantum attacker could include invalid transactions with forged proofs, but I'm not sure they could actually break Zcash's privacy properties? I'd need to review the design details more to say for sure, but e.g. fr
174.
by dlubarov 11mo ago
> They released the hostages The deal included remains of deceased hostages, most of which were not released at the agreed 48 hour point. > they probably died from explosive that were already lying around The source behind this theory
175.
by dlubarov 11mo ago
Hamas only has one charter. Some Westerners like to think of the separate 2017 document as an "updated charter", but Hamas themselves never used such language, and in fact explicitly stated that the 2017 document did not replace t
176.
by dlubarov 11mo ago
The position Wales was taking was that Wikipedia shouldn't be calling it a genocide in its own voice ("wikivoice"), which means taking a side rather than neutrally documenting the controversy. Larry Sanger also made a similar
177.
by dlubarov 1y ago
From a textualist standpoint you're right, but in practice the Supreme Court has expanded the First Amendment to prohibit government actions (besides just lawmaking) that would deter speech.
178.
by dlubarov 1y ago
There are a number of them mentioned on Wikipedia itself [1]. I hesitate to use Wikipedia as a source given all the anti-Israel bias lately, but that particular section seems okay-ish for now and I'm not aware of a better list. [1] ht
179.
by dlubarov 1y ago
Ultimately it's a numbers game, and editors with an anti-Israeli agenda have the numbers. Jimbo's post reads as if he's encouraging chances so that the article adheres to NPOV, but I think he understands that's rather fu
180.
by dlubarov 1y ago
> You are doing so by fraudulently stealing/embezzling money from your employer In this scenario Amazon is contractually obligated to pay Israel (unless they determine that they can't legally). If this employee is dutifully ful

More ›