Comment by dijit

Comment by dijit 10 months ago

Please help me understand then, because from what I can understand about the facts here:

1) It was delivered into the pockets of Senior Leadership of Hezbollah, with an incentive for those pagers not to be distributed elsewhere.

2) The explosive yield was very small, of an estimated 3000 pagers; 12 fatalities were recorded, making the death rate about 0.4%. One of which was a child, a relative of a Hezbollah leader. (this is an unjustifiable tragedy, but the only recorded civilian fatality).

3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population - considering the attack happened at a singular time where it was not possible to get all of the members away from the civilian population at all.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning, it's not indiscriminate if it's very targeted and very localised.

lawlessone 10 months ago

>3) There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population

How do you know this ?

That sounds like a canned talking point. Up there with "Most moral army ever".

Reply View 7 replies

dijit 10 months ago

Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you.
It's like something in a James Bond movie, or a cheesy riff on the genre like Kingsman.
You might not want to acknowledge it, but this is definitely a new era of warfare, and one that hopefully has benefits for everyone - reducing the reliance on global supply chains that harm the environment because labour is cheaper elsewhere. (it's a very thin silver lining, let me have it).

Reply View | 5 replies
- lawlessone 10 months ago
  
  >Well, I'm in awe to be perfectly honest with you.
  Why? They killed 12 people including a child.
  If it was bank robbery and the police shot through a child but killed 11 robbers there would be a lot of heads rolling at that police department.
  
  Reply View | 4 replies
  
  dijit 10 months ago
  
  No there wouldn't.
  Don't be silly, 11 criminals dead and one bystander is well within limits of even a civilian police force, military ones are considered much more broad.
  NATO sets the acceptable loss threshold at 4:1; for every 4 combatants killed, 1 civilian is considered acceptable.
  It's very fluid, but you'll be hard pressed to find something more conservative than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio
  Yes, this is callous, and cold, and awful, but emotion has no place here, we're talking about people on both sides who feel like they are fighting for their right to exist. This is quite literally war, and there will be casualties.
  Truth be told, while I'm not giddy and children dying, I'm glad we're talking about so few civilian casualties despite causing so much damage to Hezbollah operatives and operations.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
Aeium 10 months ago

How do they know this?
What are you talking about?
What other operation ever conducted do you think even comes close?
Thousands of detonations and a fraction of 1% with any effect off target? What other operation do you think comes even close?
Canned talking point? Try like basic reasoning instead

Reply View | 0 replies

lm28469 10 months ago

[flagged]

Reply View 3 replies

dijit 10 months ago

Sabotage of military devices (with military targets) is permitted so long as there is minimal (or minimised) harm to civilians.
http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur

Reply View | 2 replies
- lm28469 10 months ago
  
  ctrl-f devices: 0 results
  > To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
  Do you think they meant: booby trapping is _illegal_ unless it's to harm military personnel ? lol
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  dijit 10 months ago
  
  No, booby trapping is really clear:
  "Rule 80. The use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians is prohibited."
  Examples of protected objects are childrens toys or medical supplies bearing the insignia of the red cross; but if you want further reading: See, the military manuals of Belgium (ibid., § 32), France (ibid., § 39) and Germany (ibid., § 43) - hard to read without translations though.
  Examples of protected persons include, of course, doctors who wear the red-cross insignia. However it's also a war-crime to wear this insignia and act in the interests of any power exclusively, or operate as a combatant. - so, owning military equipment that is given out by the high command of a terror organisation would immediately disqualify you, and if you survived the blast you would be facing a tribunal.
  However, Booby-traps which are used in a way not prohibited by the current rule are still subject to the general rules on the conduct of hostilities, in particular the principle of distinction (see Rules 1 and 7- linked below) and the principle of proportionality (see Rule 14). In addition, the rule that all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (see Rule 15) must also be respected.
  But proportionality is in play if you do not fall below the NATO recommended 4:1 combatant:civilian ratio. Which it seems Israel didn't.
  Rule 1: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
  Rule 7: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7
  Rule 14: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14
  Military Manuals: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima
  Sources: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources
  
  Reply View | 0 replies