gruez 2 days ago

The claim isn't that they're "civilian devices", it's that they're "devices all over civilian society". That's relevant because bobby trapping them is liable to cause casualties.

  • Zironic 2 days ago

    It's like cluster bombs and landmines. You have no idea where all these things are. You have no idea how many of them exploded and which didn't and it's extremely hard to clean up the duds.

    • mrguyorama 2 days ago

      And neither are against the laws of war. The US has decided to reduce their usage, but Russia uses air deployed landmines with high dud rates and it is not a war crime.

  • loeg 2 days ago

    Notably, these are not booby traps. (The defining feature of booby traps is that they are triggered by the victim.)

    • chillingeffect 2 days ago

      No. That's one definition, but not the only one.

      • loeg 2 days ago

        I believe you are mistaken. Please find any source that defines it in a way that isn't victim-triggered. Every single one I've checked includes similar language.

        • [removed] 2 days ago
          [deleted]
  • exe34 2 days ago

    this was a special shipment created for the terrorists. this isn't just putting a bomb into every pager.

    • gruez 2 days ago

      >this isn't just putting a bomb into every pager.

      I never claimed otherwise. Again, the claim isn't that innocent people are carrying the pagers, is that the pagers are around innocent civilians. It's not any different than drone striking terrorists at weddings[1], which also drew criticism from human rights groups. Even if we assume the targets are definitely terrorists, that doesn't solve the issue of civilians who happen to be nearby.

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wech_Baghtu_wedding_party_airs...

      • exe34 2 days ago

        the blast radius is much smaller. from the market video, the people around him were fine, and only the heznobollah guy was considering the impact of terrorism on future generations.

    • freehorse 2 days ago

      Were the kids killed also terrorists?

      • Duwensatzaj 2 days ago

        Any kids killed were accidental as opposed to the Hezbollah rockets shot at northern Israel. When those rockets killed 12 kids playing soccer those deaths were intentional.

      • exe34 2 days ago

        what alternatives would you propose?

        1. heznobollas stop firing rockets into Israel?

        2. Israel sending smart bombs with much higher collateral damage?

        3. an engraved invitation later to members (hehe) of heznobollas to come and be fired upon in an open space to avoid kids?

        4. or are you suggesting instead that Jews should just get used to getting fired upon and let their cities be destroyed because you don't care about Jewish kids getting killed?

        anything I've missed?

    • dtornabene 2 days ago

      How do you know this? you can't know it. You have no idea how many people had these devices.

      • exe34 2 days ago

        it was a shipment of pagers paid for by heznobollas to communicate because they thought mossad was able to listen and track everything else. it was never a general Lebanese market pager that happens to be used by heznobollas occasionally. they bought in bulk and handed them out to their soldiers.

tamimio 2 days ago

Says who? Pagers are used by doctors and icom are used by pretty much anyone who needs that communication, like construction workers in a site or first responders.

  • loeg 2 days ago

    Not the ones distributed to Hezbollah.

  • petre 2 days ago

    Being linked to Hezbollah carries certain occupational risks.

    • freehorse 2 days ago

      So if somebody turned the phones of all members of X army (say IDF) into bombs, and exploded them at mass when a lot of them would be off duty with their families, would that be ok? This is what happened here.

      • borski 2 days ago

        During wartime? Yes.

        Technically that would be a targeted attack, and if “somebody” were able to pull that off it would be an absolutely massive win for that “somebody.”

        I wouldn’t like it, but I certainly could not call that terrorism, as it explicitly targeted militants.

      • meepmorp 2 days ago

        > So if somebody turned the phones of all members of X army (say IDF) into bombs, and exploded them at mass when a lot of them would be off duty with their families, would that be ok?

        Yes. Because it would be an attack targeting active military personnel during a time of war, even if they happen to be around non-combatants at the time.

        • talldayo 2 days ago

          That doesn't seem correct. Israel's enemies are not justified for attacking Israel even if the majority of their "citizens" are military reservists during wartime. If we want to play the non-combatant tally game, then a strike on Israel becomes deeply justified as an attack on an entrenched dual-purpose position.

          ...but that's ridiculous, and we should apply the same standards of morality to our enemy even when they refuse to cooperate. Lebanon is not and cannot be treated as a zone including nothing but combatants, and neither can Israel. By crossing the line of terrorism (make no mistake: they were aware of the threat to civilians), Israel is further damaging international support and again blurring the lines between the IDF and their enemies. The UN just convened to tell Israel to renounce their occupied territories in the next year - the days of "lawn-mowing" civilian infrastructure without criticism have passed.

          If we keep seeing the Dahiya doctrine and Hannibal directive proliferate, there will be no way for a morally defensible US administration to support IDF operations.

      • petre 2 days ago

        Fortunately for its members, the IDF is not an amateur terrorist organization and they do check their hardware. Also the exploding hardware attack did occur on a national holiday, but during business hours on a weekday.