• Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        3 months ago

        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?

        • nogooduser@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          ·
          3 months ago

          the people doing the detonating had visual confirmation of the targets not being in close proximity to civilians

          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.

              • Dasus@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                3 months ago

                So which is it? “People in the vicinity are not harmed” or “whops we killed a kid”?

                Can’t fucking be both, can it?

                  • Dasus@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    9
                    ·
                    3 months ago

                    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.

      • wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Since this targets explicitly combatants

        Hezbollah is, also, a political party. It’s military wing was formed to fight the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon.

        • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            3 months ago

            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.

          • superkret@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            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.)

            Also, a janitor in a civilian building will never be an active combatant by any stretch of international law, no matter which organisation they belong to.

            • AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              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.

            • InvertedParallax@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              Do the confederates next, they were back in power in 10 years and terrorizing black people with the KKK shortly after.

        • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

      • TokenBoomer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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