Comment by dijit

Comment by dijit 2 days ago

12 replies

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 2 days 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".

  • Aeium 39 minutes 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

  • dijit 2 days 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).

    • lawlessone 2 days 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.

      • dijit 2 days 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.

lm28469 a day ago

> Please help me understand then

Bro, it's the text book definition of a war crime, that's it, like it or not.

https://disarmament.unoda.org/ccw-amended-protocol-ii/

> Article 6 - Prohibition on the use of certain booby-traps

1. ...it is prohibited in all circumstances to use: (a) any booby-trap in the form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

> A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as ... deception by perfidy, ...

> 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 -

Go on r/combatfootage and witness hundreds of bombs dropped on 100% military targets with no civilian soul in a 10km radius... are you for real ?

  • dijit a day 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

    • lm28469 a day 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

      • dijit a day 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