• Kaboom@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    3 months ago

    What are you talking about? The beepers and radios were bought by Hezbollah, and went to Hezbollah members. They were surgical strikes.

    Meanwhile, Lebanon is still firing rockets at Israel. The only reason that not more Israeli civilians are dead is because of the Iron Dome

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      What are you talking about? The beepers and radios were bought by Hezbollah, and went to Hezbollah members. They were surgical strikes.

      This may be news to you, but Israel has been executing a flurry of airstrikes and artillery shelling on Lebanon since.

    • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Surgical my ass. Blowing explosives you planted on people way out of sight AND without any situational awareness is anything but precise

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

          I’d say its about the same. Both have no idea where it will explode. The only thing Israels solution has going for it is the significantly less powerful explosive

      • spechter@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I mean it was certainly precise as in each device was carried by their respective owner and therefore intended target.

        Blowing it up while the guy was standing in line in a grocery store shows how much civilian casualties have been considered though.

        • MaggiWuerze@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          I mean it was certainly precise as in each device was carried by their respective owner and therefore intended target.

          There was no way to know that for Israel though, they just assumed

    • Sundial@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      If they were surgical then why did innocent civilians and children get hurt? What kind of surgeons are you used to and what on earth is their level of success?

      Meanwhile, Lebanon is still firing rockets at Israel. The only reason that not more Israeli civilians are dead is because of the Iron Dome

      Why is Israel getting attacked by Hezbollah? (It’s not Lebanon attacking Israel.)

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’d say it was closer to a surgeon than to most recent Isreali actions, but you’re right, “surgical” is always a propaganda term in military contexts. There is no clean war, only relatively less dirty.

        • Sundial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Saying it’s close to a surgeon compared to the rest of Israel’s actions is like saying a sawed-off shotgun is slightly more accurate because you added a tiny barrel to decrease it’s spread. It’s common knowledge this was an act of terror that violated international law and was intended to escalate the conflict to help keep Bibi and his cronies in power while also grabbing more land from Palestine and Lebanon. Calling it “surgical” is not just propaganda. It’s an outright lie and intended to misdirect from what’s actually happening.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            It’s common knowledge this was an act of terror

            I really don’t think so. That’s just some people’s opinion. Hell, even “act of terror” is poorly-defined, as used.

            and was intended to escalate the conflict to help keep Bibi and his cronies in power

            That’s valid, though. There’s nothing just about the war, valid method in this one instance or no.

            • Sundial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              It really is an act of terror. This isn’t subjective. If you attack a population and spread terror among them than it’s an act of terror.

              “It is also a war crime to commit violence intended to spread terror among civilians, including to intimidate or deter them from supporting an adversary,” the experts warned. “A climate of fear now pervades everyday life in Lebanon,” they said.

              Source

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror? I kinda thought you might go there, but it’s a uselessly vague dictionary definition. In practice it’s even more political than “surgical strike”.

                Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general. These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me, but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.

                Humanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects where specifically designed and constructed with explosives

                This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.

                • Sundial@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror?

                  Police arrest and imprison a thief because they are a thief and have done a crime. Deterrence is not the main intent and just a byproduct. This was an intentional escalation of an already volatile situation to promote fear in the Lebanese population and provoke a response from Hezbollah. These 2 situations are in no way related.

                  Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general.

                  Unless the pagers had some kind of biometrics capability capable of verifying that the person beside the pager was a Hezbollah member and no one else was around then it was not “directed at personnel of a military adversary”. You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.

                  These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me

                  If experts are saying something then maybe you should listen?

                  but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.

                  An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Deterrence is not the main intent

                    Any number of politicians, police officers and domestic legal experts openly disagree with you. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “deter criminals” many times before.

                    Abstract moral punishment and rehabilitation are also in the mix, but deterrence is listed first as often as not.

                    You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.

                    Spraying bullets vaguely towards the enemy is not unusual at all in infantry operations. Quite often they’re concealed or covered, and you either want to keep them that way or kill them before they can kill you, regardless. In fact, the automatic setting on an ordinary assault rifle can’t do anything else.

                    Also, airstrikes are not biometric, but that’s the next bit.

                    An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?

                    Yes. High-tech or not it’s a big boom and you only have you’re intelligence guy’s best guess about who’s inside of or next to the military position. It sounds like you might have fallen for some “surgical strike” type rhetoric here yourself.

                • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.

                  This is not quite as cut-and-dry. The prohibition is for civilian objects. The argument can be made that Israel rigging the communication devices of Hezbollah operatives specifically is not invalid just because communication devices are dual-use objects.

                  But regardless. It’s shitty, Israel’s motives are shitty, and all most of us half a world away can do is meme to keep our sanity.

                  Or lose it. Whatever.

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    Do you know which treaty that was exactly? I also wonder if it was written at a time when opaque military supply chains and detonation by network weren’t around. A walkie-talkie that blows up on use and is sold openly would indeed be indiscriminate as hell.

    • gnutrino@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      They have since been bombing the shit out of residential areas which is significantly less surgical…

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah, like, fuck Israel, I’m no ally of Israel, but the pager thing is dubious-but-overblown. I could see it being a war crime, but I could also understand if it was determined a legitimate ruse-of-war by a legitimately unbiased international court.

          The fact that they immediately escalated to shelling residential areas afterwards? A bit more damning.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Yup. I’d say it was legit, given that airstrikes on military targets that might have visiting civilians are considered legit. Like, at the very least that seems like a court case worth fighting, although IANAL.

            Literally everything else I can think of has been messed up.

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            pagers thing is probably illegal pending extra details but it’s not the worst thing that happenes there. not like this case will see hague ever so it’s probably a bit moot on that ground

            it’s middle east, there are no innocent orgs, except civilians, and no one has actual incentive to limit civilian casualties. i’d just wish that both likud and hamas lose because neither is compatible with remotely sane stable politics in region

          • skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.deM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            i’ll make it shorter for you if you don’t have attention span for a paragraph of text:

            pagers are probably a war crime, but it’s relatively minor compared to airstrikes that happened since (and before)

      • Kaboom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        So booby trapping military equipment is bad because civilians might get caught in it, but firing rockets at civilians is a-ok?