pvaldes a day ago

"Arguing over minutia to dilute and divest the focus from the main discourse" pattern detected again in this thread.

wut42 2 days ago

still: The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate, using a means of attack that could not be directed at a specific military target and as a result would strike military targets and civilians without distinction

  • mrguyorama 2 days ago

    >device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate

    Nope, artillery shells are not illegal and you can even miss where you are aiming! We once obliterated an entire French coastal village with naval gunfire on D-Day because information in war is imperfect.

    Accidentally killing civilians is not illegal in war! If you have a "valid military target" who takes a cab from the airport, you can airstrike that cab and not violate the Geneva Conventions.

    Consider that a nuke that you detonate in the center of a military base that also "just happens" to wipe out the entire city that base is in is not a war crime!

    • wut42 2 days ago

      Yeah no you are targeting somewhere specific even if you miss.

      This was a large scale indiscriminate attack. Which is entirely forbidden in Geneva Conventions.

      • tptacek 2 days ago

        It was a large scale extremely discriminating attack, from all available reporting, right? The Geneva Conventions and ICRC documentation on IHL are online, and have been cited repeatedly on these threads; could you cite the claim you're making, just so we're all clear what it is? People might agree or disagree, but a lot of pointless flaming is driven by people that don't even agree on what they're arguing about.

newspaper1 2 days ago

According to that definition they are:

"booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use"

  • abracadaniel 2 days ago

    That would hold true for something like a pay phone, but a personal electronic device, only used by the combatant, would not be associated with civilian use.

    • anigbrowl 2 days ago

      You're assuming your premise as your conclusion. I am not at all convinced about how many of those targeted yesterday actually qualify as combatants. Also, just because a combatant owns something does not make the thing military. Pagers are commonly used by people in emergency services, industrial technicians, and so on.

      • tptacek 2 days ago

        These pagers work only on Hezbollah's own military network. Lebanon literally had a civil war about this specific issue! People are doing a lot of axiomatic reasoning here about stuff they can look up.

    • newspaper1 2 days ago

      A pager is a piece of consumer electronics definitely associated with civilian use. There's a story about a little girl who tried to hand her dad his pager from the dinner table and it blew up in her face. Civilians will not expect consumer tech devices to be bombs.

    • dtornabene a day ago

      according to who? A little girl was killed today precisely because she picked up someones pager. On top of that solar panels (!!!) are blowing up across Lebanon right now, do those count? Are those somehow incontrovertibly "associated" with a combatant?

      • tptacek a day ago

        I think the solar panel thing isn't confirmed? And so far as I've seen, it's only reported to have happened in on place in Dahieh. If it is confirmed, you'll also be waiting for reporting and evidence that it was a supply chain attack on solar panels (seems unlikely), or a direct attack on that building.

        (It seems unlikely to me because we have reason to believe the handsets and pagers shared a contract manufacturer or distributor. Mossad isn't like Gambit from the X-Men; they can't just make random things blow up.)