Comment by ivan_gammel

Comment by ivan_gammel 2 days ago

24 replies

It was not unfortunate collateral damage in the sense of unknown unknown. Civilian casualties must have been anticipated and nothing has been done to prevent them. It is not „accepted“ rules of war, but normalized disregard of human life.

borski 2 days ago

Once again: watch any of the videos. The vast majority of them involve anyone standing around the operative walking away just fine. This was a targeted attack.

Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them, and that is the point.

  • anigbrowl 2 days ago

    While it seems few bystanders suffered physical injuries, it's naive imho to think that this won't cause enormously elevated fear among the population at large. 'Koolaid' is still synonymous with mass cult poisoning in the US even though that incident happened ~50 years ago in a different country. Everyone in Lebanon is having nightmares about random electronic devices turning out to be bombs, even though they know that's logically not the case. Just like people in New York feel differently about seeing airliners than they did before 9-11.

    • borski 2 days ago

      Sure, that's true. They would have much worse trauma if these were air-dropped bomb or rocket. As strikes go, this was very surgical; but you're right, war is awful.

      You'll never hear me say war is good. It's awful.

  • ivan_gammel 2 days ago

    > Once again: watch any of the videos

    What makes you think that I did not watch them? And why do you think a few videos circulating online are representative of a few thousands explosions?

    > Some civilians got hurt, but the intent was not to harm them

    What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated?

    • borski 2 days ago

      Didn’t mean to imply you hadn’t watched them at all; was simply trying to use them as evidence.

      > What makes „some“ any different than a hundred or a million? How can you be certain of the intent if civilian casualties were/should have been anticipated?

      The point I’m trying to make is that there was a very small amount of explosive in each device. They could have added more material had they wanted to do more damage.

      There were many ways to make this far more damaging, and they could simply have shot rockets or bombs from the air.

      This was a targeted attack, focused on the specific users of these devices, who are Hezbollah militants. Bystanders were not intended to be harmed, which makes this, by definition, a discriminate and surgical attack on Hezbollah militants.

      I’m not really sure what about that isn’t clear.