So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror? I kinda thought you might go there, but it’s a uselessly vague dictionary definition. In practice it’s even more political than “surgical strike”.
Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general. These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me, but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.
Humanitarian law additionally prohibits the use of booby-traps disguised as apparently harmless portable objects where specifically designed and constructed with explosives
This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.
So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror?
Police arrest and imprison a thief because they are a thief and have done a crime. Deterrence is not the main intent and just a byproduct. This was an intentional escalation of an already volatile situation to promote fear in the Lebanese population and provoke a response from Hezbollah. These 2 situations are in no way related.
Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general.
Unless the pagers had some kind of biometrics capability capable of verifying that the person beside the pager was a Hezbollah member and no one else was around then it was not “directed at personnel of a military adversary”. You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.
These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me
If experts are saying something then maybe you should listen?
but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.
An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?
Any number of politicians, police officers and domestic legal experts openly disagree with you. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “deter criminals” many times before.
Abstract moral punishment and rehabilitation are also in the mix, but deterrence is listed first as often as not.
You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.
Spraying bullets vaguely towards the enemy is not unusual at all in infantry operations. Quite often they’re concealed or covered, and you either want to keep them that way or kill them before they can kill you, regardless. In fact, the automatic setting on an ordinary assault rifle can’t do anything else.
Also, airstrikes are not biometric, but that’s the next bit.
An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?
Yes. High-tech or not it’s a big boom and you only have you’re intelligence guy’s best guess about who’s inside of or next to the military position. It sounds like you might have fallen for some “surgical strike” type rhetoric here yourself.
Any number of politicians, police officers and domestic legal experts openly disagree with you. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “deter criminals” many times before.
That point is used for political theatre. How often do you see the conviction of a crime justified in the name of deterrence of future crimes in a courtroom? EDIT: Again, this example isn’t related to the above situation.
Spraying bullets vaguely towards the enemy is not unusual at all in infantry operations. Quite often they’re concealed or covered, and you either want to keep them that way or kill them before they can kill you, regardless. In fact, the automatic setting on an ordinary assault rifle can’t do anything else.
The point I’m trying make here is that Israel had no actual way of verifying they were hitting Hezbollah members. They just intercepted a shipment of pagers going to Lebanon that they know Hezbollah members used and put in explosives. What happened if you’re just a regular guy trying to buy one of those pagers? How did Israel know that actual Hezbollah members were in possession of pagers when they hit the button to blow them up? The short answer is they didn’t know the answer to either of those questions. That’s why there were innocent casualties. Hence, calling it an act of terror.
Yes. High-tech or not it’s a big boom and you only have you’re intelligence guy’s best guess about who’s inside of or next to the military position. It sounds like you might have fallen for some “surgical strike” type rhetoric here yourself.
I genuinely don’t know how to explain to you that exploding a bunch of pagers with no knowledge of where they are or who has them at any given time has more potential for collateral damage than an airstrike using advanced weaponry on a military target. Just because Israel doesn’t care about civilian casualties and likes to carpet bomb entire neighborhoods doesn’t make your point valid.
How often do you see the conviction of a crime justified in the name of deterrence of future crimes in a courtroom?
In a courtroom, they don’t justify laws at all, except maybe relative to other, more foundational laws. They just interpret them.
Theater implies it’s not very much meant earnestly, by politicians and criminologists alike. And honestly I myself agree with that kind of deterrence, there should be rules that people are mortally afraid to break; anything else is a power vacuum and won’t last.
hey just intercepted a shipment of pagers going to Lebanon that they know Hezbollah members used and put in explosives. What happened if you’re just a regular guy trying to buy one of those pagers?
It’s actually known now that their own shell company sold directly to Hezbollah. It’s not like this was a random shipment to Lebanon, there was no risk of that. The civilian casualties were a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I genuinely don’t know how to explain to you that exploding a bunch of pagers with no knowledge of where they are or who has them at any given time has more potential for collateral damage than an airstrike using advanced weaponry on a military target.
I genuinely thing that’s empirically wrong. What you call “advanced weaponry” still uses the same explosives from WWII, but in even greater quantities. The 21st century electronics mean it will hit a specific building instead of “London”, but it’s still 2000 pounds of RDX or whatever.
I feel like you and I could go back and forth on this discussion for a very long time. I do disagree with your logic, but I also do see where you’re coming from(kinda). Hopefully you don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t see too much benefit in arguing semantics over a word choice of a problem we both agree exists. I think it’s best if we simply agree to disagree and go on with our days.
This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.
This is not quite as cut-and-dry. The prohibition is for civilian objects. The argument can be made that Israel rigging the communication devices of Hezbollah operatives specifically is not invalid just because communication devices are dual-use objects.
But regardless. It’s shitty, Israel’s motives are shitty, and all most of us half a world away can do is meme to keep our sanity.
Do you know which treaty that was exactly? I also wonder if it was written at a time when opaque military supply chains and detonation by network weren’t around. A walkie-talkie that blows up on use and is sold openly would indeed be indiscriminate as hell.
It’s Article 6 section 1 subsection “a” that’s relevant here. Interestingly, it’s worded specifically about self-detonating objects, as opposed to remote controlled ones, which other parts of the text do include. Maybe there’s been updates of some kind to this, though; I defer to the actual lawyers.
So when the police arrest someone for stealing in order to deter other potential thieves, that’s an act of terror? I kinda thought you might go there, but it’s a uselessly vague dictionary definition. In practice it’s even more political than “surgical strike”.
Collective punishment is a war crime, but this was directed at personnel of a military adversary, not Lebanese people in general. These UN experts seem to think it was indiscriminate, and they’re way more qualified than me, but at the same time an airstrike on a specifically military target is generally considered okay, and has way higher potential for collateral damage.
This one’s new to me. Yep, that fits to a tee. Never mind, it was illegal.
Police arrest and imprison a thief because they are a thief and have done a crime. Deterrence is not the main intent and just a byproduct. This was an intentional escalation of an already volatile situation to promote fear in the Lebanese population and provoke a response from Hezbollah. These 2 situations are in no way related.
Unless the pagers had some kind of biometrics capability capable of verifying that the person beside the pager was a Hezbollah member and no one else was around then it was not “directed at personnel of a military adversary”. You don’t play a shooter and say spray-and-pray is an effective strategy because over 80% of the bullets hit the target.
If experts are saying something then maybe you should listen?
An airstrike with guided missiles on some of the most advanced fighter jets in history has more potential for collateral damage than a bunch of improvised IED’s spread throughout a population? Really?
Any number of politicians, police officers and domestic legal experts openly disagree with you. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “deter criminals” many times before.
Abstract moral punishment and rehabilitation are also in the mix, but deterrence is listed first as often as not.
Spraying bullets vaguely towards the enemy is not unusual at all in infantry operations. Quite often they’re concealed or covered, and you either want to keep them that way or kill them before they can kill you, regardless. In fact, the automatic setting on an ordinary assault rifle can’t do anything else.
Also, airstrikes are not biometric, but that’s the next bit.
Yes. High-tech or not it’s a big boom and you only have you’re intelligence guy’s best guess about who’s inside of or next to the military position. It sounds like you might have fallen for some “surgical strike” type rhetoric here yourself.
That point is used for political theatre. How often do you see the conviction of a crime justified in the name of deterrence of future crimes in a courtroom? EDIT: Again, this example isn’t related to the above situation.
The point I’m trying make here is that Israel had no actual way of verifying they were hitting Hezbollah members. They just intercepted a shipment of pagers going to Lebanon that they know Hezbollah members used and put in explosives. What happened if you’re just a regular guy trying to buy one of those pagers? How did Israel know that actual Hezbollah members were in possession of pagers when they hit the button to blow them up? The short answer is they didn’t know the answer to either of those questions. That’s why there were innocent casualties. Hence, calling it an act of terror.
I genuinely don’t know how to explain to you that exploding a bunch of pagers with no knowledge of where they are or who has them at any given time has more potential for collateral damage than an airstrike using advanced weaponry on a military target. Just because Israel doesn’t care about civilian casualties and likes to carpet bomb entire neighborhoods doesn’t make your point valid.
In a courtroom, they don’t justify laws at all, except maybe relative to other, more foundational laws. They just interpret them.
Theater implies it’s not very much meant earnestly, by politicians and criminologists alike. And honestly I myself agree with that kind of deterrence, there should be rules that people are mortally afraid to break; anything else is a power vacuum and won’t last.
It’s actually known now that their own shell company sold directly to Hezbollah. It’s not like this was a random shipment to Lebanon, there was no risk of that. The civilian casualties were a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I genuinely thing that’s empirically wrong. What you call “advanced weaponry” still uses the same explosives from WWII, but in even greater quantities. The 21st century electronics mean it will hit a specific building instead of “London”, but it’s still 2000 pounds of RDX or whatever.
I feel like you and I could go back and forth on this discussion for a very long time. I do disagree with your logic, but I also do see where you’re coming from(kinda). Hopefully you don’t take this the wrong way, but I don’t see too much benefit in arguing semantics over a word choice of a problem we both agree exists. I think it’s best if we simply agree to disagree and go on with our days.
NP, have an unironically nice day.
This is not quite as cut-and-dry. The prohibition is for civilian objects. The argument can be made that Israel rigging the communication devices of Hezbollah operatives specifically is not invalid just because communication devices are dual-use objects.
But regardless. It’s shitty, Israel’s motives are shitty, and all most of us half a world away can do is meme to keep our sanity.
Or lose it. Whatever.
Do you know which treaty that was exactly? I also wonder if it was written at a time when opaque military supply chains and detonation by network weren’t around. A walkie-talkie that blows up on use and is sold openly would indeed be indiscriminate as hell.
1980
A link to the text that currently works, Wikipedia has some rust going on.
It’s Article 6 section 1 subsection “a” that’s relevant here. Interestingly, it’s worded specifically about self-detonating objects, as opposed to remote controlled ones, which other parts of the text do include. Maybe there’s been updates of some kind to this, though; I defer to the actual lawyers.