Comment by Arch485

To me it just looks like rhetoric, an us vs. them type deal. Call something terrorism so that you can justify using any kind of violence against them basically.

Terrorism targets civilian populations. This operation, as described, targets Hezbollah militants.

That feels like an oversimplification to me. Some of those devices have surely injured civilians. I think the question is how many. Broadly it's the same question that's plagued Israel's actions since last October: there will always be civilian casualties as a result of military action, but how many is too many?

It's not terrorism when you're on the winning side. That's how it's always been.

It would be terrorism if they celebrated the civilian casualties and wished there were more.

If they could have executed this without a single civilian injury they definitely would have. I guess intent is what makes it terrorism vs war in my mind.

> If it's not terrorism, what is the differentiating factor(s)?

Typically the differentiating factor is who the victims are and what the goal of the operation are - terrorists = victims are primarily civilian and the operation has negligible military benefit. Not terrorists = the targets are military. If there is collateral damage then it is not excessive (or not intended to be; intent matters) in relation to the military objective.

All this is subjective of course, and politics are involved, but that is what the difference is usually given as.

In this particular case - i would say it would be terrorism if it was random people's radios & pagers, but not terrorism if it was pagers/radios bought for military purpose that were primarily owned by soldiers. Initial reports suggest it is the latter, but i imagine more details will appear in time to better make that determination.

One reason might be this is directly targeting Hezbolla personnel, and does minimal collateral damage.

It's not terrorism, as Israel is targeting their enemies during war. Terrorism is targeting uninvolved civilians not during war.

The Hezbollah attack that started this war was an act of terrorism.

The Ukraine placing bombs in cities where the Russians are about to march in is not terrorism.

Having that said: It would be better if the Hezbollah could be stopped by other less cruel means. But war is ugly. The Hezbollah has started it so Israel has all the right to defend themselves. Even if it's cruel.

i am wondering what is state doing with parallel non state actor hezbollah? how is the lebanan state allowing non state actor to wage wars with foreign nations on its behalf?

First - from the 'technical' point of view - I can't wait to read books / documentaries about how it was all prepared etc. Fascinating.

I can't really wrap my head around it neither, is it terrorism or not ?

On one hand it sure is - we don't know if it was the main goal, but it sure did instil fear and terror. Even in people that have nothing to do with the region.

On the other hand, it's pretty much as targeted as it gets. From what we know, the explosives were really small, installed in devices specifically used by their targets. I have hard time imagining any other way one could eliminate or incapacitate thousands of legimitate (in their view at least) targets without firing a single bullet and with so few other casualties (and yes, of course even a single one is too much).

Wikipedia:

> Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants

> how is this not considered terrorism on Israel's part?

Terrorism is variously defined [1]. People are debating whether this was "random or indiscriminate nature" relative to other terrorist attacks. But relative to any wartime strike on an enemy capital, it's been highly precise.

The reason it's open to intepretation is we don't know Israel's motivation. Is it to mark Hezbollah members? A prelude to a strategic strike? If so, it's not terrorism. If it's to scare Hezbollah and the Lebanese, on the other hand, it does start to look like terrorism.

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

"If it's not terrorism, what is the differentiating factor(s)?" The power structure in charge of labeling.

What's the old saying? "One mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

You should start by outlining the definition of terrorism, but by that point it would be obvious it isn't terrorism and such a post would have been unnecessary.

The US Federal government uses the following definition:

the term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:22%20section:...

The real question I never see being asked is how a country lets a terrorist org operate to such a degree in their country befrore you can assume they are letting them operate.

A terrorist org having their own ammo depo is probably a hint.

Lets then transplant the example to other ground lets say Poland lets a terrorist group operate within its borders and that terrorists org regularly sends rockets over to Germany.

What do you think Germany is suppose to do? Ask Poland to deal with an org that they openly support, and openly allow to attack Germany?

Terrorism, by definition, is directed against civilians. Hezbollah militants are not civilians. Hezbollah is recognized as a terrorist organization by US, EU, Canada and League of Arab States among others. The declared goal of Hezbollah is to fight US and Israel.

Pagers and radios are used for their communication. That means that it is a military equipment.

The difference is the target. Targeting non-combatants would make it terrorism. Hezbollah aren't non-combatants.

Modern war obviously doesn't follow all the rules the Geneva convention assumed (Hezbollah militants don't wear their insignia and IDs) but in practice it seems fairly effectively targeted given the casualty breakdown so it'd be a hard case to make.

If you consider it a terrorism, it is it, and it's up to you to decide.

Most modern countries terrorize people by design, because they can use the 51% illusion to justify any of their actions.

They also use the same illusion to teach you what's terrorism and what's patriotism, and they will for sure try to teach you young — if they don't, it will be kinda hard to distinguish later on

My opinion - it is fully intended to invoke terror and destabilise the target community. Thus it is a terrorist act whether or not it falls under the rules of engagement of the perpetrator.

The militant/civilian fatality ratio was 11/2 yesterday.

Hezbollah is a militia, I think the goal of terrorism is to scare a civil population. Of course one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. But I would have problems to call Hezbollah anything of that sort.

Hezbollahs goal is to destroy Israel, so I wouldn't call any military action against them terrorism. They have a right to defend themselves and that right does include these tactics.

Terrorism is a matter of perspective. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

Maybe we should all just try to treat others the way we want to be treated? That’s pretty much what that hippy Jewish philosopher guy said back in the day.

On each side they think the others are the terrorists but the fact is that they're terrorizing each other and have lots of non-military casualties. I think of them as terrorists on both sides.

Hezbollah is a military peer of Israel and the two are openly at war.

this is very hard to defend considering the lack of consideration for collateral damage.

however as already pointed out, even this happened in one instance, it all depends on which side you are on. being from a country that fought for its independence, we remember those who did the deed as "freedom fighters". during the time, from the "opressor's" point of view, however, they would have been seen as insurgents.

If you saw how many standing ovations Mileikowsky got last month in his speech the US congress, I think it is very clear.

"Terrorism" is one of the most useful terms for dehumanizing and delegitimizing a group's actions. It's only a useful term insofar as it's applied only to the enemy.

Mental gymnastics will be in full force here and in the media/politics to recategorize it.

I have no doubt a headline saying "Israeli politicians' hand-held radios explode, killing three, one day after pager blasts" would receive very different responses in this thread.

It's terrorism if "they" are doing it, and not if "we" are doing it. That's actually the real practical definition used by everyone all over the world.

They’re not terrorists because they’re on a side we support. At worst, we might consider them rebels, though that’s usually reserved for people in this hemisphere.

The argument is that the IDF is targeting enemy combatants, and not deliberately targeting civilians (unlike, e.g. Hamas). The existence of non-combatant casualties alone does not imply terrorism.

Criticism of Israel here on HN will only earn you down votes and flagging. It's not worth it.

Isn’t Israel targeting militants or those associated with a terrorist organization?

I mean, maybe it meets the technical definition of terrorism, but at a certain point all military conflict becomes terrorism and the term becomes meaningless.

While I don't want to get involved in a political and radioactive topic (and don't intend to participate in an ongoing discussion), it seems to me there is something important to be said here.

To my mind, there are two critical moral differences between war and terrorism. The first is that the soldier attacks those who are fighting him - if not exactly the guilty, at least the active and resistant. The terrorist doesn't care if he attacks the weak and innocent and in fact prefers it. The second is that the object of a soldier's attack is to break the resistance, and he minimizes evil and suffering in pursuit of that goal. The terrorist maximizes it as a point of strategy.

Of course, fighting is sometimes necessary - evil must be resisted or it will dominate the earth. And in a messy real world, fighting often unavoidably hurts the innocent and the uninvolved - or even the involved in unnecessary ways. The desire to do things perfectly has to at some point yield to the need to do something - insisting that only perfect actions be taken is the same as saying no actions can be taken.

So what makes a fighting action moral? There isn't a bright line. At the margins, this is a judgement call. What level of violence, of what sort, is acceptable is something good people will have differing opinions on. But to suggest that the existence of a spectrum and the necessity of exercising judgement erases the categories is to commit the beard fallacy. The fact that we cannot say exactly when stubble becomes a beard does not mean there is no such thing as a beard - it just means the edges of the definition are fuzzy. That's actually normal! Most definitions have fuzzy edges, and have weak meaning on those edges. If one person wants a clean shaven man for some purpose and another wants a bearded man, both may consider a week old shave unacceptable for their purposes. Definitional edges have their interests, but don't necessarily inform how we think about centers.

Most ethics in war and in fighting turn on these ideas of innocence or powerlessness and necessity. Soldiers take prisoners (and treat them well) because taking someone out of the conflict is the honorable goal of war, and causing suffering once that is accomplished is evil. Criminals in prison (should) still have human rights for the same reason. I once heard a federal law enforcement official describe a shootout with a criminal, stating that the criminal was shooting at him and didn't care who else he hit, while the LEO was unwilling to return fire against the backstop of an occupied apartment building because that would be evil.

It does cost something to do things right - you pay for it in the blood of your own soldiers and in your chances of victory. One reason to seek an overwhelming force is to have the luxury of doing things as cleanly as possible. In a more even fight, at higher stakes, necessity may look different. People do take capabilities and circumstances into account when they judge you.

Nonetheless, there is a very big difference between doing the right thing imperfectly or even badly and doing the wrong thing. There are matters of degree between going to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties and accepting more of them. That does not mean intentionally targeting civilians exists on that spectrum. That's crossing an entirely different line.

On a personal level, in a self defense scenario, you can be taking actions to stop a threat or to hurt a person. The first is moral and legal; the second is immoral and illegal. And while you sometimes do the second in the course of doing the first, the minute you are doing it for its own sake, you are over the line. While we may disagree over where exactly the line is, that doesn't mean you can put it anywhere you find convenient. There is a moral truth to the situation.

Every criminal says they're acting in self defense through some twisted line of reasoning. And every terrorist can tell you why their targets are legitimate and their actions necessary. It is entirely possible to argue along such lines and to be wrong. Further down the thread, someone argues that targeting civilians is justified when those civilians vote for the government you are fighting. This is an example of careless moral reasoning that seeks to justify evil - you cannot know who voted how, and we do not kill people for how they vote or we find ourselves in the position of killing huge numbers of people. This is a thin justification for violence as a goal in itself. Likewise, someone argues that targeting the innocent is justifiable in a very asymmetric conflict. Again, this is a very thin justification. It is true that you are judged by the precision of your weapons and the options available to you, but a tenuous relationship to some strategic advantage doesn't justify egregious and pointless violence. At some point, it starts to look like the violence is the point to you and you're just evil.

These lines of argument highlight why I feel the need to respond. This erasing of the line between war and terrorism, which has apparently happened in the minds of a lot of people here, has an effect that is doubly harmful. It has the effect of hampering necessary and legitimate war by miring it in endless criticism and confusion about legitimacy. This is bad - when we fight evil, we need to be able to have intelligent conversations about how to acceptably do it. Overly hampering our capabilities helps evil be a little more dominant - keeps the bad guys a little more in control on the margins. Calling war terrorism commits this evil. But perhaps a worse evil is committed by calling terrorism war - it has the effect of justifying it! There are people in this thread who think that targeting voters and children is okay because they are confused about the concepts of innocence and necessity and in their confusion are incapable of intelligently evaluating reasoning that involves those concepts. It is not a great leap between finding terrorism morally acceptable and being willing to support it.

The ethics and morals of violent conflict - whether writ small between individuals or writ large between nations - have been a topic of discussion for all of civilization. While we don't always agree, a lot of important, intelligent, moral things have been said on the topic - things worth learning. We have concepts like war crime and terrorism for reasons. Contrary to (apparent) popular belief, there are not merely ugly sounds, linguistic weapons wielded for power. They are important and specific ideas, given to us by generations of thinkers, that help us distinguish between good and evil and understand the moral meaning of things. You erase those in your own mind at the risk of supporting and committing atrocities. It is important to know when the price of winning morally obligates you to lose, and when the price of losing morally obligates you to win. The ability to tell the difference comes, not from erasing lines, but learning how they are drawn and why.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

[flagged]

Indeed, it's against the Geneva Convention, and a 12 year old girl was hurt.

It is terrorism. If Reuters is not calling it terrorism, it does not make it not terrorism.

I think it is considered terrorism. Whoever did it, nobody would say that this attack makes military sense, lebanon is not at war, and civilians have died. But since IDF didn't do it, we ll never know who the terrorists are.

Terrorism is just a label to describe attacks by people that powerful governments don't like. If you have enough military power, you're a legitimate government conducting a war (even if you're lobbing hundreds of missiles and drones into civilian targets like Russia is). If not, you're a terrorist org or government.