At least 20 more people were killed and 450 injured in Lebanon on Wednesday after a series of new explosions of wireless devices rocked the South, the Bekaa and the southern suburbs of Beirut, according to the Ministry of Health and the Lebanese Red Cross.
Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. 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. Human Rights Watch
Explicitly combatants… and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity when the bomb goes off.
“Extremely” targeted you say? So when they were detonated, the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians?
The bombs are small. People in the vicinity are not harmed. You can see videos of them exploding in supermarkets and on streets. The only one injured is the owner of the pager.
You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.
Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently
I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?
Customary international humanitarian law prohibits the use of booby traps – objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use – precisely to avoid putting civilians at grave risk and produce the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. 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. Human Rights Watch
Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)
Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an ‘indiscriminate’ attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he’s in?
Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts
From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment
It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.
I don’t know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as a kid, I thought to myself, “how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?”
Or, “why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?”
News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.
Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.
in the same way that all SS members are war criminals
That’s absolutely not how the nazis’ war crimes were handled post-war.
Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
(At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more…thorough in their de-nazification.)
In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.
Since this targets explicitly combatants, it’s not terrorism.
The attacks are extremely targeted, and thus not random at all. No terrorism.
Whoosh
Hezbollah are not civilians, but combatants. So this is legal under international law.
Feelings don’t care about the facts.
Explicitly combatants… and anyone who happens to be in their vicinity when the bomb goes off.
“Extremely” targeted you say? So when they were detonated, the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians?
The bombs are small. People in the vicinity are not harmed. You can see videos of them exploding in supermarkets and on streets. The only one injured is the owner of the pager.
Compare to the 11 Druze children in Israel Hezbollah killed recently.
Ah. So this 9-year-old-girl was killed on purpose then, I take it?
Since “People in the vicinity are not harmed” it had to have been targeted. Right? Right??
Killed on accident
So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?
Can’t fucking be both, can it?
Sure it can. Only people directly in contact with the pager were harmed. If a child holds it, then it is harmed.
The explosion only had a small area of lethal effect is what I’m saying. There are lots of videos of people close by the explosion being unaffected.
No, it can’t be both.
You say that “people in the vicinity are not harmed.” Either the 9-year-old-girl was targeted, or she wasn’t. If she was harmed, it was according to you, a targeted strike at her, or she would not have been harmed.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Either she was harmed on accident by a bomb which did end up harming innocents, or she was targeted on purpose. THOSE ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE STATEMENTS.
You’re on a soccer field and try to kick the ball into the goal, miss and hit a spectator. The goal was targeted, the spectator wasn’t.
The target was a Hezbollah member, the weapon was a pager bomb, the child is an innocent bystander hit by accident.
Or even had the pager at all instead of leaving it at home where their kids could get hold of it or a fire could be started.
Hezbollah is, also, a political party. It’s military wing was formed to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.
The people getting these communication devices aren’t exactly the kitchen personnel
True. Who would want a 9-year-old-girl as kitchen personnel?
Do you think Hezbollah gave her a pager? What was her father’s position within Hezbollah? Maybe he’s the one that fired some rockets that killed someone else’s kids recently
I’ll engage with your shitty whataboutism after you answer which it is: were the bombs “surgical” and killed a 9-year-old girl on purpose, or were they sloppy attacks which caused civilian casualties on accident?
Although they did kill that girl (and others) on accident, the attack as a whole seems to have been far more surgical that what we usually see in this conflict (and dare I say, certainly more surgical than most attacks from Hezbollah)
You can’t have it both ways.
Either it was “very surgical” and still killed a small girl (ie the girl was targeted) OR Israeli attack methods are so indiscriminate and poorly aimed they end up killing INNOCENT CHILDREN.
It’s one or the other.
That’s a very childish way to look at it.
Imagine if Hezbollah managed to send a missile right up Bibi’s bedroom window and killed both him and, unbeknownst to them, some child that was with him. Would you then conclude that it was an ‘indiscriminate’ attack? Would you not make a difference between that and say a carpet bombing where they just try to level the city block he’s in?
Please use more caps and bold formatting in your posts
From what I can tell online its militant wing predates the political wing. Just adding that in because I thought it might be the other way around based on your comment
It is classified as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the international community. By legal definition, all Hezbollah members are terrorists regardless of what they do in the organisation, in the same way that all SS members are war criminals even if they were an office janitor or something, which makes them legitimate targets in a broader way than ordinary combatants who are bound and covered by the laws of war.
I don’t know if you grew up during the color coded terror threat level days, but after updating everyone on the days terrorism threat color, the nightly news anchors would share how many terrorists were killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Even as a kid, I thought to myself, “how is everyone killed by coalition forces a terrorist?”
Or, “why are car bombs that kill coalition forces in theatre, called terror attacks?”
News flash, governments and media label all sorts of organizations and actions terrorism, 90% of it is propaganda, or bullshit.
Otherwise, I guess that would mean Ukrainian forces fighting Russians are also terrorists, which is how the Russian government and media refers to them.
That’s absolutely not how the nazis’ war crimes were handled post-war.
Only those with a direct active role and sufficient knowledge were charged in the post-war trials.
90+% of the SS members just went right back into their pre-war jobs.
(At least in the western part, the Soviets were much more…thorough in their de-nazification.)
In law, every SS member, without exception, was axiomatically classified as a war criminal, with membership being sufficient evidence in itself. Of course, the western allies were not above looking the other way if it potentially meant the difference between victory and defeat in the Cold War, but this was an informal policy imposed from high up.
Do the confederates next, they were back in power in 10 years and terrorizing black people with the KKK shortly after.