World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
So...
They're just casually admitting to another war crime?
Against someone I don't even think they're officially at war against?
From the article,
So in other words, they're denying it officially. Just as they deny possessing nuclear arms.
Do they recognize Hezbollah as a country? Can't officially be at war with someone you don't recognize - those are just termed "police actions." An oxymoron if I've ever heard one.
I'm as critical of Israel as any reasonable person but that's like the one thing they did recently that was actually a (at least somewhat) targeted attack against their enemies.
Calling that a war crime unnecessarily and dangerously dilutes the term. Leveling cities and starving the fleeing population is a war crime and a crime against humanity. Intentionally shooting civilians, children, aid workers, and journalists is a war crime. How about we focus on those, it's not like there's a shortage of israeli war crimes to report on.
EDIT: Apparently Lebanon reports 2800 injured and 12 dead from these attacks... How many fucking explosive pagers were involved? I doubt a significant percentage of those were Hezbollah, which would make that a war crime. The callous inefficiency of IDF operations will never cease to amaze me.
Why would you think only valid military targets were next to these?
Why are you still believing the IDFs first reports when the vast majority of the time they're lying?
That's... not a war crime is. I don't want to be the guy who justifies the death of civilians, because each one is a tragedy, but unfortunately in war there is such a thing as greater evils.
Now that's fair. And of course we can as well point out that their whole war is self-inflicted to start with so there's not much legitimacy to any of their acts of war, even the less illegal ones.
This is terrorism and a violation of International humanitarian law. It's not a war crime because Lebanon and Israel are not at war, yet Israel just attacked civilians in public, including health workers, and even officials in Parliament. Lebanese civilians are people like anyone else, yet this isn't treated like the mass terrorist attack it is in most Western Media.
Their defense minister literally just said it was a war...
https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-israel-exploding-pagers-hezbollah-syria-ce6af3c2e6de0a0dddfae48634278288
They're desperately trying to start wars to drag the US in while Biden is still in office.
If an all out war happens, there is 100% chance Biden dives into it.
Kamala there's a slight chance she does the right thing, and trump's price to go against Russia's allies will be ridiculously high.
So they want Biden to be the one to react.
Not that Israel needs an excuse to commit a war crimes on any day that ends in Y, but I don't believe this is a violation of the Geneva convention.
It was a mass targeted assassination campaign against an opposition military force structure. I'm not saying it's not a crime, just that I don't believe it's a war crime.
But I'm open to the very real possibility that I am wrong about that. So if I am, can you point me to the article(s) it's in violation of?
I genuinely would like to fill that gap in my knowledge, if it exists.
pagers are small enough that its likely a number of people were injured by pagers that had like fallen out of somebody's pocket.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiscriminate_attack
Even if they could somehow prove every single person in possession of those pagers was a combatant, those people were just everywhere spread out in society.
Imagine sitting on a bus and the person next to you you've never seen before explodes, and you do too
Those are rooted in actions like bombardments of civilian areas e.g. Dresden, Gaza, etc.
Just because an action has collateral damage, does not make it indiscriminate.
Again, it's not like Israel isn't already committing war crimes every day, I'm just not clear if this is one of them.
For example, when the Ukrainian's assassinated the propagandist in St Petersburg at the cafe, there was collateral damage. Still doesn't make it a war crime.
I am not comparing the morality of Ukraine to israel, I'm just giving you relevant example from recent history
It's definitely indiscriminate. They chose to use explosives that will cause large amounts of collateral damage. Even if the idea itself is fine, the 2750 injuries are 100% on them.
Large collateral damage is a percentage.
An attack that targets and harms mostly combatants with little collateral damage is not indiscriminate. I'm curious what the ratio of combatants to noncombatants is before arguing whether this attack was a war crime.
I haven't seen reports of significant collateral damage. I'm sure there was at least some, but that's different from large amounts of collateral damage. To be considered indiscriminate, I think it would need to have either used larger charges with a bigger blast radius or distribute the pagers more widely in the hopes that Hezbollah agents got them along with the public. From my understanding, which may be flawed, neither of those conditions are true, so while there almost certainly was collateral damage, I don't currently think it was widespread enough to consider the attack indiscriminate. If you have a source to contradict me, I'm open to reading it.
Fuck Israel's rampant genocidal war crimes, but I don't think this counts as one.
Admittedly I can't find the civilian injury numbers (I don't think they're out yet), but I found this:
At least, they were indiscriminate enough that the EU foreign policy chief found it appropriate to call them indiscriminate, which makes sense given that they were at least strong enough to kill or injure the guy sitting next to you on the bus if you're carrying a pager.
Also from here:
Given that 12 have died so far (9 at the time of the article), I'd expect more than 2 to be Hezbollah fighters before I call the attack discriminate. Now while there is a chance they're more discriminate than this information implies, I doubt they got enough Hezbollah combatants or combat-adjacent members to qualify as valid military action.
Hmmm you may be right. We'll have to see how the numbers shake out to be sure either way, but I'll concede it at least sounds plausible the collateral damage is unacceptably high.
Just putting in for the record, that I'm asking.
I was, and you cited something that is not applicable.
At least, not as it was intended and has been applied. Maybe this will be a precedent setting case, but until then...
Maybe you should read it...
They're not at war with Hezbollah, so it's just terrorism really.
Tell Israel:
https://apnews.com/article/lebanon-israel-exploding-pagers-hezbollah-syria-ce6af3c2e6de0a0dddfae48634278288
I swear it's got to be to drag the middle east into a massive war to maybe trigger some sort of clause that forces the US to go to war for Israel or end up with massive penalties. It's the only thing that makes sense that isn't just, "For the Evilulz"
And I swear to fuck if the US was actually stupid enough to enter a deal that forces them to go to war and send troops if the entire Middle East turns on Israel...
I mean, bibi seems to have the US by the short and curlies. I have no doubt that if things got spicy enough the US would gladly send boots on the ground to die for Israel's actions. I could even imagine bibi saying "oh we're so hurt, you guys do this, and we will stay back to defend our territory" while some poor schmuck from winsconsin gets exploded by an ied.
When there are zero consequences for war crimes, the "rules based" law and order we virtue signal is completely meaningless.