Exploding pagers
-
-
I thought it interesting that NPR went to activists rather than the law itself to define ‘booby trap’. So I asked ChatGPT4.0 if booby trap is defined in international law. (Bold in the original)
Yes, "booby trap" is defined in international law, specifically in relation to armed conflict. The definition is found in Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), formally known as the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices. This protocol was adopted in 1980 and aims to limit the use of these kinds of devices to protect civilians and combatants from unnecessary harm.
According to the protocol, a booby trap is defined as:
- Any device or material designed to kill, injure, or incapacitate and which is triggered unexpectedly by someone’s presence, proximity, or contact with it.
Examples include objects that appear harmless, like everyday items (e.g., toys, tools, or household objects), but are rigged to detonate or cause harm when handled or approached. The use of booby traps is subject to certain restrictions under international humanitarian law, particularly with regard to protecting civilians and non-combatants.
As these were triggered remotely it doesn’t seem to fit.
In the event, it was pretty well targeted. Most of the people killed or maimed were legit targets. Really well played.
-
Link to videoThe U.N. says these attacks did violate international law.
Israel never complies with international law, anyway, so I suppose it makes no difference.
-
I suspect indiscriminately lobbing rockets into another country is also a violation.
-
@Daniel That guy called this a booby-trap but it doesn’t fit the definition provided in the law.
It’s hard to even conceive of a more targeted attack with less collateral damage directed at a terrorist group that embeds itself among civilians. I mean that literally, I actually can’t imagine one.
Can you?
-
No. Seems fair to me. Brilliant, actually.
-
Another thing about international law is it doesn’t reward groups that break it. Just because a military force such as Hamas or Hezbollah uses human shields doesn’t mean it can’t be attacked. Just that care must be taken to balance risk of civilian casualties against legitimate war aims. This seems to pass that test handily.
-
The thing people don't get about Gaza and the West Bank is that the civilians ARE the targets.
They're not collateral damage.
But I've said this 100 times and included citations. I could say it 900 more times and people who don't, don't want to, or won't acknowledge it won't change their position.
The fact we are on the brink of nuclear war because of this conflagration is icing on the cake.
Oh, well.
-
I doubt Israel is going to nuke anyone. The risk today comes from Russia-Ukraine.
Too bad we talked them into giving the nukes to Russia. I'm sure no one else will make that mistake in the future.
-
You should figure in Israel's strong desire to go to war with Iran and be joined by its ally the US in your calculations.
The neocons, Republicans and Democrats, have wanted a war with Iran for a long time.
Also, the US proxy regime in Ukraine has already asked permission to target Moscow with long range missiles. This would be an asinine act of provocation.
-
Isaac Saul at Tangle looks at the pager explosions.
https://www.readtangle.com/the-pager-attack-in-lebanon/?ref=tangle-newsletter
-
-
@Big_Al said in Exploding pagers:
I wonder how you pack enough explosives into enough pagers to kill some individuals and injure more than a thousand?
Big Al
A closer look at the operation.
-
@Daniel
In answer to the question posed in that video, no, we wouldn't be laughing; we'd be looking at how to strike the Russian imperialists with whatever force we could bring to bear. We might forebear from launching nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, at least in the near term.Big Al
-
There were people laughing about it. I can find the clips. It became, "a thing."
I'm staring death down in the face right now so I won't go looking for them.
Maybe one day people will stop underestimating me by thinking I don't have reasons for what I post, and that I can't back up what I say.
But it's been decades now. I won't hold my breath.
There was a metaphor used in the old days, at the OCR, at TNCR, and here, expressed in the form of a question-- "Is this the hill you want to die on?"
I will die on the hill of objecting to Israel's occupation, genocide, and aggression, and I won't feel badly about it for a split second.
