• oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      103
      ·
      3 months ago

      These are extremely targeted attacks, not aimed at the wider population. It is meant to more than scare Hezbollah members for sure.

      • Gerudo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        81
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        The stuff is blowing up inside stores and buildings around innocent people. How is that targeted? Israel doesn’t give 2 shits about innocent people being injured and possibly killed.

        • SkyezOpen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s still a million times better than dropping a thousand pound bomb on a refugee camp to take out 1 hamas guy, and that’s at least commendable.

          It’s worse that they’re blowing up people in a country they’re not openly at war with, stirring shit and risking even more retaliation.

          • BearGun@ttrpg.network
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Being better than war crime is not commendable if you’re still at terrorism. Just because they’ve done horrible shit before doesn’t mean slightly less horrendous shit should be remarked upon and punished.

        • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          53
          ·
          3 months ago

          How is this not super targeted? Hitting 3000 terrorists and and only a handful of civilians as collateral is exceptionally good. For you it’s probably bad anytime Israel kills one of their enemies.

          • acargitz@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            28
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            So like killing a “handful” of Israeli civilians would be “exceptionally good” if the target was a bunch of IDF reservists?

            • xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              3 months ago

              I mean, yeah. The tragic answer is that civilian casualties are inevitable in war, unfortunately.

              According to a UN meeting from 2022, 90% of war casualties globally are civilians. That’s not to say that’s an acceptable ratio, in fact it’s horrifying, but it does show that a ratio of “a handful” to “a bunch” is quite a lot better than the average.

              https://press.un.org/en/2022/sc14904.doc.htm

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              34
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s never good, but when Hezbollah chose to restart the violence they knew it was never going to be without collateral

          • filister@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80 you know International laws exist for a reason, and Israel clearly violated many international laws, which by the way were created to prevent such events like WWII.

            You know Israel can find a peaceful solution if it only permits the establishment of an independent state of Palestine. But instead they prefer to continue their warmongering politics.

                  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    10
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    The unsaid implication of your loaded question is that the absence of a Palestinian state is “the fault of the Palestinians”. The further implication is that “Israel has no partner for peace” even now. Basically, the implication being we need to keep doing whatever the Israeli right wants in perpetuity.

                    If by some miracle you’re not just parroting right wing pro-Israeli talking points, please elaborate what the hell you mean with your question instead.

                • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Nakba was in 1948. 1949-1967 Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza. Why didn’t Palestinians establish a state then and there?

          • Gerudo@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            21
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Traditionally, a targeted attack minimizes collateral damage to almost zero. Do you have stats on who was killed/injured? I do know 2 children were killed. I’m sure they were hard-core Hezbollah.

            Doing this kind of attack indicates Israel didn’t care AT ALL who they took out. Ah, much like their reactions in Gaza.

            • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              16
              ·
              3 months ago

              3000 pagers exploded. All had small amounts of explosive like 20 g. You can watch videos of them exploding in traffic, supermarkets, etc. people next to them remain unharmed. So you have 3000 explosions all over the place including crowded areas. Two dead children is a quota of 1500:1. That is exceptionally good.

              Compare that to the Hezbollah rocket than killed 11 Druze children in Israel.

              • kense@lmmy.dk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                13
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Wow only 2 dead children. Amazing, let’s celebrate!

              • Gerudo@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                Are you both siding this shit? Let me be clear, Hezbollah, Hamas AND Israel each have done awful things to innocent civilians in the name of revenge. How hard is it to say enough is enough and want innocent civilian populations ON ALL SIDES to not die? Children born into these situations, and many adults have zero opportunities to get away from the violence. They should not die due to factions and government decisions.

        • oberstoffensichtlich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          68
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

          Since this targets explicitly combatants, it’s not terrorism.

          Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims

          The attacks are extremely targeted, and thus not random at all. No terrorism.

          • Dasus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            47
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Explicitly combatants… and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity when the bomb goes off.

            “Extremely” targeted you say? So when they were detonated, the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians?

          • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Since this targets explicitly combatants

            Hezbollah is, also, a political party. It’s military wing was formed to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

            • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment

            • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              16
              arrow-down
              13
              ·
              3 months ago

              It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.

              • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                18
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                I don’t know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

                Even as a kid, I thought to myself, “how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?”

                Or, “why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?”

                News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.

                Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.

              • superkret@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                in the same way that all SS members are war criminals

                That’s absolutely not how the nazis’ war crimes were handled post-war.
                Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
                90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
                (At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more…thorough in their de-nazification.)

                Also, a janitor in a civilian building will never be an active combatant by any stretch of international law, no matter which organisation they belong to.

                • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.

                • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do the confederates next, they were back in power in 10 years and terrorizing black people with the KKK shortly after.

            • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              3 months ago

              The people getting these communication devices aren’t exactly the kitchen personnel

                • nonailsleft@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?

                    Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction. Human Rights Watch

          • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction. Human Rights Watch

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        The pagers were very questionable. Even assuming ONLY hezbollah had the explosive pagers, they were still detonating in public since the point of a pager is to be able to carry it around.

        Walkie talkie wise? I still need to reflexively condemn anything that kills children. But… that actually does seem super targeted and would presumably not be something a terrorist “should” carry around in public during their non-terrorist lives.

      • Broken_Orange_Juice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        We’ve seen targeted attacks before in Lebanon, and they can hit an individual target with a drone without any interference. A targeted attack kills and harms its target, and only it’s target. No one else.