Comment by lm28469

Comment by lm28469 a day ago

> Please help me understand then

Bro, it's the text book definition of a war crime, that's it, like it or not.

https://disarmament.unoda.org/ccw-amended-protocol-ii/

> Article 6 - Prohibition on the use of certain booby-traps

1. ...it is prohibited in all circumstances to use: (a) any booby-trap in the form of an apparently harmless portable object which is specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material and to detonate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

> A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as ... deception by perfidy, ...

> There has never been, in the history of all warfare, such a surgically precise attack with such a low casualty rate of the civilian population -

Go on r/combatfootage and witness hundreds of bombs dropped on 100% military targets with no civilian soul in a 10km radius... are you for real ?

dijit a day ago

Sabotage of military devices (with military targets) is permitted so long as there is minimal (or minimised) harm to civilians.

http://casebook.icrc.org/a_to_z/glossary/saboteur

Reply View 2 replies

lm28469 a day ago

ctrl-f devices: 0 results
> To sum up, sabotage against the enemy is a lawful operation provided the legal rules for the choice of targets and the methods and means employed are respected.
Do you think they meant: booby trapping is _illegal_ unless it's to harm military personnel ? lol

Reply View | 1 reply
- dijit a day ago
  
  No, booby trapping is really clear:
  "Rule 80. The use of booby-traps which are in any way attached to or associated with objects or persons entitled to special protection under international humanitarian law or with objects that are likely to attract civilians is prohibited."
  Examples of protected objects are childrens toys or medical supplies bearing the insignia of the red cross; but if you want further reading: See, the military manuals of Belgium (ibid., § 32), France (ibid., § 39) and Germany (ibid., § 43) - hard to read without translations though.
  Examples of protected persons include, of course, doctors who wear the red-cross insignia. However it's also a war-crime to wear this insignia and act in the interests of any power exclusively, or operate as a combatant. - so, owning military equipment that is given out by the high command of a terror organisation would immediately disqualify you, and if you survived the blast you would be facing a tribunal.
  However, Booby-traps which are used in a way not prohibited by the current rule are still subject to the general rules on the conduct of hostilities, in particular the principle of distinction (see Rules 1 and 7- linked below) and the principle of proportionality (see Rule 14). In addition, the rule that all feasible precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimize, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects (see Rule 15) must also be respected.
  But proportionality is in play if you do not fall below the NATO recommended 4:1 combatant:civilian ratio. Which it seems Israel didn't.
  Rule 1: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule1
  Rule 7: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule7
  Rule 14: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14
  Military Manuals: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/src/iimima
  Sources: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/sources
  
  Reply View | 0 replies