• Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 month ago

        Hi, I’m definitely not a pacifist. I’ve been in war zones. And the laws of war exist for a reason. The choice is not war crimes or pacifism. Anyone telling you that is a shit person trying to make you a shit person. Don’t listen to them.

      • SaltySalamander@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        You can’t fucking win with the pacifists

        Especially if your entire argument is the equivalent of “nuh-uh!”

    • dariusj18@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      52
      ·
      1 month ago

      I would hesitate to call it terrorism, it was targeted at military persons with an intent at military disruption and any public casualties were collateral damage. It may have been a war crime though.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 month ago

          Sabotaging dual-use communications devices that are used, specifically, by members of an enemy paramilitary group is not a clear-cut war crime. On the other hand, there is a very strong argument that ‘blind-firing’ such devices en-masse without regard for the proximity of civilians or possibility of civilian harm is a war crime via insufficiently discerning use of force. But even that is something that could probably be argued in a legitimately-unbiased international court - not that it’ll ever fucking get to one, considering Israel’s history with international courts.

          Either way, it’s a shite move that was only meant to escalate the situation so Bibi can stay in power a few more minutes. Vile shit.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            “stress that booby-traps associated with objects in normal civilian daily use are prohibited, and that booby-traps must not be used in association with protected persons, protected objects (such as medical supplies, gravesites and cultural or religious property) or internationally recognized protective emblems or signs (such as the red cross and red crescent).[3] Several manuals further specify that booby-traps must not be used in connection with certain objects likely to attract civilians, such as children’s toys.”

            A cell phone is a normal civil daily use item and would attract use by civilians.

            This specifically would come from Rule 80, pertaining to booby traps. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule80

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 month ago
              1. “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

              As these were remotely detonated, they do not fit the definition of a booby trap. Rather, the issue becomes a war crime because of Israel’s choice to detonate, which was very likely done in a manner that was reckless and without regard for collateral damage.

              • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                So would you classify them as an improvised explosive device instead? That the department of homeland security says are used by “criminals, vandals, terrorists, suicide bombers, and insurgents”

                That wouldn’t be a good look either

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  Didn’t say it was a good look. In fact, I quite explicitly noted that it was a shit move and likely a war crime. Just probably not because of international law on booby traps, but because of international law on discriminate use of force.

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                I think you’re splitting hairs.

                The intent of the inclusion of boobytraps within that definition is pretty clear. Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome. How does one know if a device they are purchasing or picking up is one that’s been modified to explode during normal usage?

                • PugJesus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  I think you’re splitting hairs.

                  I think you’re looking for excuses. Fuck’s sake, splitting hairs? That’s quite literally the legal fucking definition.

                  Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome.

                  You’re right, that’s also why maskirovka is illegal. If you disguise a tank as a house, what comes next?

                  /s

                  Also why anti-tank landmines are illegal. If you disguise an explosive under a road, what other dastardly things can you do?

                  /s

              • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

                You’re forgetting a couple or statements there. These were absolutely booby traps and command detonated traps exist.

              • yogurt@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                “Other devices” means manually-emplaced munitions and devices including improvised explosive devices designed to kill, injure or damage and which are actuated manually, by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time.

                It is prohibited to use booby-traps or other devices in the form of apparently harmless portable objects which are specifically designed and constructed to contain explosive material.

                “Booby traps and other devices” is one legal thing, there’s no legal distinction. Pager bombs are always a war crime regardless of circumstances.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            No. The distribution is as indiscriminate as leaving command detonated mines in place. (also a war crime). You cannot ensure those mines only target combatants after you leave. The indiscriminate distribution is a war crime as much as the indiscriminate activation.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            Hezbollah isn’t just a paramilitary group, though, it’s an actual political party in Lebanon.

            You’d have to have an extremely narrow understanding of who Hezbollah even is to claim the attack was legitimate

            Not to mention the intentional fear the strike created that now legitimizes Hezbollah’s mandate against Israel. Yea, it was ‘shite’, but it seems pretty well designed to manufacture fear and chaos and to bait Lebanon into a broader conflict.

        • hoch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 month ago

          I don’t think you can just call things you don’t like a ‘war crime’

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            The disguising of a military weapons in the form of common civilian used equipment to trick your opponent is a war crime.

            It was a war crime in 2008 when a bomb was disguised as a spare tire in an SUV used to kill the head of Hezbollah’s international operations, whether we agree the target needed to be taken out or not. A drone strike would be “lawful” a car bomb is not.

            A cell phone is common civilian equipment. This isn’t “whatever I think.”

            • PugJesus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month ago

              It was a war crime in 2008 when a bomb was disguised as a spare tire in an SUV used to kill the head of Hezbollah’s international operations, whether we agree the target needed to be taken out or not. A drone strike would be “lawful” a car bomb is not.

              Far from an uncontested view, at least insofar as why it was a war crime.

              This essay argues that making a military object appear to be a civilian object—such as disguising a bomb as an SUV’s spare tire—is a permissible ruse of war, not a prohibited act of perfidy, as long as the civilian object in question does not receive special protection under international humanitarian law (IHL). It nevertheless concludes that Mughniyah’s killing was, in fact, perfidious, because outside of an active combat zone a remotely detonated explosive device disguised as a civilian object must be located in the close vicinity of a military objective, which the SUV was not.

          • technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            What definition of terrorism? What legal system? There’s no objective, scientific measurement for “terrorism”. It’s purely political ideology.

            • PiousAgnostic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 month ago

              I’m responding to someone saying you can’t debate it’s a war crime. And your response is terrorism is not real.

              You are a poor Russian troll, sir. And you should be worried someone will throw you out a window for your bad arguments.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        We can’t leave mines out in a place all the civilians have left because they might one day get found by a civilian. Actively introducing bombs to the public market is absolutely a war crime.

  • Keeponstalin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 month ago

    So gross that the US considers the use of multiple 2000 lbs Bunker-buster Bombs on a residential district of a counties Capital, flattening at least six residential buildings, burying and killing hundreds of civilians, as a ‘measure of justice.’ because the intended target is the terrorist and now using Human Shields, so it’s their fault for all those civilian deaths, not Israel. Terrorism is only what Our and Israel’s enemies do.

    Whatever violence the US and our Allies do is good and just, whatever violence our and our Allies enemies do is bad and unjustified. The double standard is so flagrantly obvious. It’s not about civilians, or peace, or justice. Israel can kill however many civilians they want, even US ones, and the US will still back them.

    All that money could be going to our crippled Social Services instead and actually help people’s lives.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Iron law of institutions. Institutions do not make decisions by the rational calculus of the institution. Institutions make decisions by the rational calculus of the decision-makers.

      Israel has managed to quite thoroughly exploit that little detail in capturing our political system.

  • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    Since 23 September 2024, when Israel began its airstrikes on Lebanon, Israeli attacks have killed over 700 people,[25] injured more than 5,000,[26][27][28]and displaced hundreds of thousands of Lebanese civilians.[29]

      • SloppyPuppy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Hezb has never stopped bombing Israel. But if you want to be more species Hezb started lobbing rockets into Israel on OCT 8 2023 and never stopped up until this day at a rate of 50 rockets / drones per day. This displaced around 150k israelis which represent most population on northern Israel. They also killed plenty of Israelis including 12 Druze children. Israel just said enough is enough after 10 months or so and decided to completely eradicate Hezb.

      • Doomsider@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Yes, a bunch of had to evacuate their homes. This is why the government has come down so hard on them. Disproportionate? Sure, but then the government has never been known for their reasonableness

    • Soup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      The thing about the trolley problem is that the onvious answer is, when going purely by the numbers, to pull the lever. Too many people don’t pull it(don’t vote) and act like they did the morally correct thing while the several people get smushed.

      And the thing about it is that it’s not a trolley problem at all but simple harm reduction. It’s the same pool of people getting hurt, not two separate tracks. One party won’t protect as many as they should, sure, but the other party will happily throw gasoline on the lot and light ‘em up to keep themselves warm while they wait for the train to come.

    • Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean, yes, but it’s not a very hard trolly problem.

      Once this fucked up election is over, we can start to put massive pressure on Kamala to enact change. Unless Trump wins… Then none of us will be able to do a thing, in all honesty.

      • Glytch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        So exactly what was said about Biden in 2020. Except once Biden was elected that pressure evaporated as liberals lost interest in progressive policies.

    • Vanon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      Half the population would do nothing, just take out their phones to record it, then pretend they could’ve never changed the result. “I can’t believe the trolley did that! Yeah, I caught it on video!”

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 month ago

    Harris’ statement for anyone curious, before they accuse her of being pro-Israel for saying this.

    Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the killing of countless innocent people in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and around the world. Today, Hezbollah’s victims have a measure of justice.

    I have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

    President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.

    She, and probably Biden are clearly referencing the American POV. Would I love to see her release another statement telling Netanyahu he has to stop this and give Palestinians freedom? Yeah. But I’m also not going to pretend the US doesn’t want to get bad guys who’ve killed Americans.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        You’re going to have to clarify the Americans part, unfortunately we kill each other all the time. As to the Israelis, they aren’t targeting Americans. They’ve killed some while committing war crimes against the Palestinian people but they weren’t like, “hey let’s go kill an American today.” That’s probably the big difference between them and Hezbollah.

  • SassyRamen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 month ago

    Don’t tack on “and Harris” you wouldn’t do that for any other President. “Biden calls it…”

    • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 month ago

      I do believe she said it too.

      https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/09/28/statement-by-vice-president-harris-on-the-death-of-hassan-nasrallah/

      Hassan Nasrallah was a terrorist with American blood on his hands. Across decades, his leadership of Hezbollah destabilized the Middle East and led to the killing of countless innocent people in Lebanon, Israel, Syria, and around the world. Today, Hezbollah’s victims have a measure of justice.

      I have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel. I will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis.

      President Biden and I do not want to see conflict in the Middle East escalate into a broader regional war. We have been working on a diplomatic solution along the Israel-Lebanon border so that people can safely return home on both sides of that border. Diplomacy remains the best path forward to protect civilians and achieve lasting stability in the region.

    • Maggoty@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      She released a statement too. I could say her boss demanded a united show or her campaign staff was getting bothered by AIPAC with a month left in the campaign but that would be the same as people excusing Trump’s 5d chess bullshit. The best I can give people is she’s the American VP and she’s going to care that a terrorist who killed Americans died.