Comment by golergka 2 days ago
Can you explain how ultra targeted, small explosive charges quack terrorism? I have been reading comments like this yesterday, and I'm completely bewildered as to how any sane person could come to this conclusion.
Did you consider the US operation to take down Bin Laden an act of terrorism too?
> Imagine this was Hezbollah detonating hundreds or thousands of devices in Israel?
If these were devices used predominantly by IDF, I wouldn't consider it an act of terror either. However, Hezbolla prefers to indiscriminately target civilians.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/druze-shock-war-be...
Since we're bringing other conflicts into this... How come Ukraine is able to put in every effort to avoid civilian death when their opponent deliberately uses cruise and ballistic missiles on residential areas?
Because Ukraine was fighting on it's own territory, not the territory of the enemy. Just today, Ukrainians have blown up the Russian arms silo the size of a small town, and I don't doubt that a lot of Russian civilians have died. There's also been a lot of casualties around Kursk. There's been a lot of civilian casualties in different attacks on Crimea too. Quite a few people died when Ukrainians attacked the Crimea bridge.
And, of course, Ukranians are within their rights and do not break any laws of war. Just as Israelis.
> How come Ukraine is able to put in every effort to avoid civilian death
Ukraine, which regularly shells civilian areas of Belgorod? That Ukraine?
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belgorod-city-where-war...
To be ultra targeted you actually have to know where your target is when your bomb goes off. When you detonate thousands at once, you're simply accepting the civilian casualty risk.
This risk is so low it is ultra targeted. Once again, the usual ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties in a modern war, per UN, is 9:1. In Gaza war, this ratio is 1-2:1, so even there, Israel is already producing 5-10 times less civilian casualties.
In this case, it's thousands of enemy combatants and (at the most, according to journalists in Lebanon and therefore under Hezbolla power) a couple of dozens of civilians. Can you calculate the ratio here? Where else have you seen a military operation of this scope and with this kind of civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio?
>Once again, the usual ratio of civilian casualties to combatant casualties in a modern war, per UN, is 9:1.
>it has often been claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars are civilians,[1][2][3][4] repeated in academic publications as recently as 2014.[5] These claims, though widely believed and correct regarding some wars, do not hold up as a generalization across the overwhelming majority of wars
>In Gaza war, this ratio is 1-2:1
>The Palestinian Health Ministry has estimated for most of the conflict that around 70% of the dead are women and children; these numbers have been corroborated by the United Nations and the World Health Organization. [74][75][76]. On the other hand, according to the Israel Defense Forces, an estimated less than 1:1 ratio has been reported [3][4].
I guess it depends on who you are listening to.
This is war. Any hostile action in armed conflict can, and will, have collateral damage to the innocent. Acts of terror and war crimes are determined by who is targeted, what precautions are taken to minimise collateral damage, and how significant is the military target compared to expected collateral damage.
If you don't want to kill any innocent civilians, your only course of action is not to offer any resistance to people who attack you and surrender.
No, this paragraph explains that "this attack killed innocent" is not a good argument if you want to prove that this was a war crime or an act of terror. If you want to prove something like this, your argument should be "this attack targeted innocents", "reasonable precautions to minimise damage to innocents were not taken", or "the military significance of target is insignificant compared to damage to innocents".
I don't see any of these arguments.
Can you imagine being in a supermarket and detonations go off dropping people? At least 8 children have died in the pager attack.
The US did not detonate personal devices using a supply-chain infiltration, I am specifically talking about this tactic. If you feel the need to bring another conflict into this, you don't think you have an argument to stand on. Imagine this was Hezbollah detonating hundreds or thousands of devices in Israel?