Simply killing a 28 year old because they could be called up is not.
This isn’t that difficult to understand, not that the militant groups in the region care or follow any rules in the first place.
Also your last sentence is pretty ironic considering who didn't follow the usual rules here. I guess it's other people's fault if Israel plants explosives in thousands of devices and triggers them with absolutely no way of knowing if they were aboard an airplane or in a hospital.
Well, it seems like most people still make a moral difference between someone who "could" one day server in the army or a militant group (for example - a 10 year old child or a 30 year old guy who never took combat training) and someone who is actively fighting. Israel did not hit random Lebanese citizens, it hit almost entirely Hezbollah operatives. Saying that all Israelis are part of the army is bullshit. Most Israelis, even today, don't do reserve duty for various reasons and quite a few never did army service. If Hezbollah finds a way to hit only (or almost only) Israeli soldiers I would be very sad but wouldn't call it an act of terror.
I beg to differ.
No, they're not. You don't know Israeli society or bothered to look at reserve numbers sorry.
Because that's similar to how Hezbollah operates. Most of their militants are not actively fighting or even "reserves", but could be called into active service when required.
If Hezbollah would become part of the Lebanese army then their members when off duty would also be protected.
Until then it’s fair game.
This version of Schrödinger’s experiment is quite kafkaesque…
So I guess the militants who died and were executed during the Warsaw uprising also deserved it, as they were part of a non nation state armed group and thus could be shot and executed even when unarmed. That's somehow okay according to your interpretation of international laws lol.
If you are willing to make Hezbollah part of the Lebanese state we can talk.
Every large-scale airstrike in an urban area hits random civilians, and so far the Lebanese Health Ministry has indicated that out of 558 killed so far, at least 148 (50 children, 94 women, and 4 medics) were very likely not to have been militants.
Of course these are just the initial stages of reporting, and everything is to be taken with a grain of salt. But in this background, the idea that the strikes have hit "almost entirely" militants is highly dubious.
Again it’s not like Hezbollah plays by those rules.
This is what happens when people have completely no idea on how wars are practically and lawfully waged by western countries.
Why should an agreement negotiated in Europe in 1899 be binding on people outside Europe?
Basically the only way to make your argument work is by applying a double standard where everyone that could quickly become an active Hezbollah fighter is fair game, but everyone that could quickly be activated in the IDF (and has the training, assigned unit and everything else planned for for said activation) is not fine. You could hand waive about international law,but it doesn't make it more true. (Israel prefers to just call everyone around them terrorists to avoid openly breaking international law anyways)
If Hezbollah wants to put itself under the command of the Lebanese army they are more than welcomed to do so.
And the funny thing is that putting explosives in thousands of devices with 0 ways to track or make sure that they don't end up in say, an airplane, is the very definition of terrorism. It's something that even the Hezbollah hasn't done!
If it would be it would be different but it also means that the Lebanese state would be directly liable for its actions.
I changed the word "pager" to "building"
1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead)
2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed)
tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all.
In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.
Iraq and Afghanistan had worse figures, by many reports even the drone part of GWOT was worse.
And those were generally fought in more permissive environments.
For the most part the single largest casualty cohort in any conflict are civilians achieving a 1:1 to 1:2 ratio depending on which figures you go by while tragic is actually quite impressive for a lack of a better word.
There are tons of videos, none of them show drones chasing children. Some show injured children which unfortunately is unavoidable. Some are children injured by hamas themselves to manufacture a narrative.
Hearsay, no. A doctor has a professional certification, and is specifically certified to make pronouncements of exactly this sort.
That doesn't make them unsusceptible to biases, pressure or corruption. But their testimony definitely does not fall into the category of "hearsay".
If anything it should be taken as sufficient grounds to initiate a proper judicial investigation.
More than sufficient grounds - an imperative, in fact.
And remember, no one will admit in official documents that they have deliberately targeted civilians, not even countries officially recognized as executing a genocide. Not a single one will have any official document saying: target innocent civilians. You can derive it from their actions