Comment by ivan_gammel

Comment by ivan_gammel 2 days ago

7 replies

> 1. Those pagers were purchased by Hezbollah, for Hezbollah. They were distributed by Hezbollah, to Hezbollah. I have extremely little doubt that Israel had intel telling them this, and that these weren’t used by hospitals by doctors and nurses.

Do you have any hard evidence of that? It is absolutely plausible scenario that Hezbollah distributed some of the devices to non-members as part of civil defense plan. In case of the war they may want to have a reliable and authoritative communication channel to civilians.

> Of course you can’t guarantee this, but the expectation is that operatives have these devices on them, as it is how they communicate with the rest of Hezbollah. That is a reasonable assumption in the fog of war.

No, it is not reasonable assumption, on the contrary, and we have seen that. It does look like most of the victims weren’t on duty, so it is reasonable to assume that they won‘t be carrying the device all the time.

> 3. Of course you can’t guarantee that. You minimize casualties by making the impact smaller but still meaningful; by using less explosive, but still enough to accomplish the goal.

Minimize != avoid. They knew that the explosion may harm the wrong person, because they did not take the measures to prevent that (chosen method made it impossible). This is indiscriminate attack by definition.

borski 2 days ago

I think you have either intentionally or unintentionally missed my point, and you're talking past me now. War never has any guarantees. You do the best you can, and you do the best the intel suggests, and you minimize and avoid civilian casualties as best you can.

Israel exploited an opportunity here to strike Hezbollah's communications network and leadership surgically; they did just that. No, there are never any guarantees there will be no collateral damage.

I'm done explaining that, as I think I have been very clear.

  • ivan_gammel 2 days ago

    You have been very clear in repeating the same argument again and again. I and few other commenters here think it is flawed, because you just assert rather than demonstrate sufficient care about preventing civilian casualties. It is obvious that Israel did target Hezbollah operatives. It is not obvious - and you did not prove that — they were not indiscriminate when triggering the explosions.

    • borski 2 days ago

      By targeting Hezbollah operatives, and by including a small amount of explosive rather than a large amount, triggering the explosions was intended to harm the Hezbollah operatives.

      Is your contention that they should have individually confirmed each device was in each owner's pocket before triggering the explosions? That would be both impossible and unreasonable to expect.

      (And thank you for engaging in good faith, rather than resorting to ad hominem nonense)

      • ivan_gammel 2 days ago

        > Is your contention that they should have individually confirmed each device was in each owner's pocket before triggering the explosions? That would be both impossible and unreasonable to expect.

        Yes, that would be impossible. This is the exact reason why it shouldn’t have happened. Israel must seek diplomatic solutions to these hostilities instead of testing ethical boundaries of warfare. I have reasons to believe they exist, even if it may seem a long way.