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.
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.
“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.
“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.
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”
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.
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?
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.
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.”
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.
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.
Maybe, but the pager thing was definitely terrorism.
No, it’s not. You can’t fucking win with the pacifists.
Especially if your entire argument is the equivalent of “nuh-uh!”
100% correct
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.
I was a war crime, I can’t find any way to even debate it not being.
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.
“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
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.
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
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.
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?
I think you’re looking for excuses. Fuck’s sake, splitting hairs? That’s quite literally the legal fucking definition.
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
Almost like someone would say they booby trapped the devices. The intent was clear as you stated.
Please, point out to me which prohibition here was violated.
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.
I don’t think you can just call things you don’t like a ‘war crime’
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.”
Far from an uncontested view, at least insofar as why it was a war crime.
I mean. It legally doesn’t fall under the definition of terrorism, so there is that argument, lol.
What definition of terrorism? What legal system? There’s no objective, scientific measurement for “terrorism”. It’s purely political ideology.