People set such a ridiculous high bar for Israel that it would prevent any war if any other country would be held to that standard.
> deployment of weapons via subterfuge is terrorism
Yeah, sure, lying to terrorists is even worse terrorism.
Not as many nations massacre civilians and/or feel compelled to murder children at massive scales in their self-defense, however.
Speaking of standards.
“Lying to terrorists” is just weasel-words for committing massive violations of Common Article 3; GC I Art. 12 & 18; GC III Art. 13; GC IV Arts. 27, 32 & 51; AP I Arts. 48, 51(2–5), 57 & 54; CCW Amended Protocol II Art. 7(2) of the Geneva Conventions.
Literally the most discriminate attack against an enemy embedded within a civilian population in history.
Common Article 3 was breached by carrying out lethal attacks against persons taking no active part in hostilities (including off-duty medics and civilians) without individual assessment; GC I Articles 12 and 18 were violated when medical personnel and facilities were hit by exploding devices carried by wounded or off-duty health workers; GC III Article 13 was infringed because many victims instantly became hors de combat through injury yet were subjected to further maiming by shrapnel designed to cause maximum harm; GC IV Articles 27, 32 and 51 were contravened by the indiscriminate killing and mutilation of civilians (including children and bystanders) and by imposing collective punishment through mass, simultaneous detonation regardless of individual status; Additional Protocol I Articles 48, 51(2–5), 57 and 54 were violated through the failure to distinguish combatants from civilians, the inherently indiscriminate and disproportionate nature of detonating thousands of devices in populated areas, and the use of treachery/perfidious means to kill; finally, Amended Protocol II to the CCW Article 7(2) was directly breached by transforming ordinary civilian pagers into prohibited booby-traps specifically designed and constructed to contain concealed explosives.
The use of treachery/perfidious means to kill is particularly disturbing, since it sets the precedent for similar means to be used in retaliation, very likely to result in yet more unjustifiable acts of terror.
“sold exclusively to terrorists” - false.
“used exclusively by terrorist organizations for communications” - false.
“weren't any non-terrorist affiliated medics ” - false.
“bystanders were essentially unaffected due to the design of the explosive payload” - false.
Prove your claims are not logical fallacies.
And then .. Go ahead, read the CCW articles I’ve quoted. It is clear you are either ignorant of their significance and relevance to this case, or arguing in bad faith in order to protect your selected in-group.
The claims made in the interview align with various other sources, including videos of the explosions showing that bystanders were unaffected. Likewise none of the spicy pagers were found to have been sold to the general public.
You claim:
> “sold exclusively to terrorists” - false.
> “used exclusively by terrorist organizations for communications” - false.
> “weren't any non-terrorist affiliated medics ” - false.
From the interview
> Lesley Stahl: Did people other than Hezbollah want to buy this based on what was being said about it online?
> Gabriel: Yes. We received several request from regular potential customer. Obviously we didn't send to anyone. We just quote them with expensive price.
You claim:
> “bystanders were essentially unaffected due to the design of the explosive payload” - false.
From the article:
> In order to put explosives inside. But not too much. Using dummies, Mossad conducted tests with the pager in a padded glove to calibrate the grams of explosive needed to be just enough to hurt the fighter -- but not the person next to him.
No? The slave workers in Nazi germany who purposely fucked up equipment to get german soldiers killed were not committing a war crime. Sabotage is legitimate warfare. The french people getting the trust of german soldiers and then slitting their throats were not committing war crimes.
>Civilians died in those indiscriminate attacks - which were terrorist in nature and deed.
Civilians die in every war because war is messy and the geneva conventions, which only considered prisoners of war until the 4th, do not prevent civilian causalities. They are not intended to. The Geneva conventions were updated after world war 2 and were STILL not made to prevent things like the London Blitz or infrastructure attacks, and indeed things like Russia trying to freeze Ukraine to death by blowing up it's electrical infrastructure is not a war crime.
If hezbollah are legitimate combatants, then they have to wear a uniform during hostilities to be protected by the conventions/protocols/hague. If they do not wear a uniform, they are considered defectors to lawful war and have less protections than actual combatants.
If China puts backdoors in all the chips we buy from them, and we build weapons with those chips, and China pressed a button that self destructs all things made with those chips, that is also not a warcrime.
War crimes are pretty much only treating POWs incorrectly by doing medical "experiments" on them or genociding them. If you are not a POW yet, the Geneva conventions don't say much about you.
Do you people think anyone would have signed a treaty that says "You can't kill more than 1 innocent person per bad guy"?
>Tell me you don't care about the Geneva convention without telling me you've probably never read the Geneva convention.
Big words from someone who doesn't seem to recognize that they geneva convention they've "totally read" doesn't say what they seem to think it says. Please quote the part where blowing up a civilian with your target is called a war crime
Show me the Article in the CCW which supports this claim. And do you mean sabotage against civilian infrastructure, or military materials? Again, show the Article, either way.
>If hezbollah are legitimate combatants, then they have to wear a uniform
Yes, true. Just as those responsible for the pager attacks had to identify themselves as combatants, also.
> If China puts backdoors in all the chips we buy from them, and we build weapons with those chips, and China pressed a button that self destructs all things made with those chips, that is also not a warcrime.
If this were to occur, it would be considered a war crime under one or more of the following articles:
- Perfidy (Art. 37 AP I)
- Indiscriminate attack (Art. 51(4) AP I)
- Excessive incidental civilian harm / disproportionality (Art. 51(5)(b) AP I)
- Treachery (broader Hague prohibition)
- Superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (Art. 35(2) AP I)
- Failure to take feasible precautions (Art. 57 AP I)
Any of these 6 violations can constitute war crimes.
>“War crimes are pretty much only treating POWs incorrectly by doing medical "experiments" on them or genociding them.”
Okay, this is just plain, ignorant, crazy talk.
>”Please quote the part where blowing up a civilian with your target is called a war crime,”
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions and from the Rome Statute of the ICC.
Extra-judicial murder through out of control deployment of weapons via subterfuge is terrorism, also. The idea that it was a 'targeted attack' is risible. Civilians died in those indiscriminate attacks - which were terrorist in nature and deed.
Except yes, indeed, we label it a war crime, in civilised society - and we seek justice for the war criminals in terms of prison sentences. Not dismemberment and maiming.
You can justify atrocities all you want. Getting called out for war crimes is the price to be paid for such 'cleverness', however.
Or else, you know, everyone will start doing it, not just those who have deemed themselves uniquely worthy of the act .. and we can't have that now, can we...