Anonymous OP 2w

Even Arab children can’t be spared being called terrorists when they simply pick up or are surrounded by a booby-trapped pager.

-2

Anonymous #1 2w

Yes, but even though they used a shell company to sell pagers to Hezbollah, it’s indiscriminate as to whether people who received it would be part of Hezbollah or non-militants. Booby-trapping a pager isn’t the same as booby-trapping military equipment, either

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

No, Hezbollah only bought pagers for its militants

11

Anonymous #1 2w

I haven’t heard that. Can you provide a source for that claim?

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

put a screenshot from a new york times article below but basically hezbollah got spooked that israel would hack its militants’ phones so it bought them all pagers instead

10

Anonymous #1 2w

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/18/world/middleeast/israel-exploding-pagers-hezbollah.html

11

Anonymous #1 2w

Just read the entire article. The article (1) didn’t provide a mechanism that was used to prevent the pagers’ distribution to noncombatants, (2) states that there were security concerns for Hezbollah operatives due to Israeli surveillance, and (3) there are claims that contradict your claim, e.g., that it was sent to “allies” (not specified) and used by noncombatants, which is also evidenced by it going off in funerals, at Fatima Abdullah’s house, and so on (cf. the same article)

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

I did read the entire article. The pagers were bought to be distributed to Hezbollah officers and fighters. The fighters were supposed to be wearing them at all times because Hezbollah was at war with Israel. They were for directing military movements. There was no way for Israel to be one hundred percent sure where every pager was going to end up, but they could say with reasonable certainty that the vast majority would be clipped to the waistbands of Hezbollah militants.

11

Anonymous #1 2w

So, the explosive was very small, designed only to hurt someone who would be wearing or holding it. When pagers went off in places like Fatima Abdulla’s house and at funerals, it was because militants were present there. For instance, the pagers that Fatima Abdullah picked up belonged to her father, who was a militant— he had taken it off

10

Anonymous #1 2w

*pager

7

Anonymous #1 2w

It was a strategic attack on Hezbollah militants with harm to civilians minimized as much as possible under the conditions of operations, but harm to civilians couldn’t be counted out entirely. And in addition to causing panic and confusion in Hezbollah’s ranks (the goal), they knew it would likely cause panic and confusion for civilians who would not know how many mobile devices were affected

10

Anonymous #1 2w

You can (and people do) say that the harm to civilians was too great and the attack shouldn’t have been carried out. But the attack was still targeted at militants and not civilians

8

Anonymous #1 2w

I acknowledge the purpose of purchade was distribution among Hezbollah, but I don’t know if there was a mechanism to ensure that only Hezbollah fighters had pagers. The fact that civilians, such as healthcare workers, were injured proves this. It being indiscriminate and locations being indiscriminate caused terror against civilians and is a terrorist attack, full stop.

-3

Anonymous #1 2w

Where did you find that information on Jaafar Abdullah? I can’t find any info on him and would love a source

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

It wasn’t indiscriminate though, indiscriminate would be if they put them in iPhones and sold them to Apple stores. Causing terror doesn’t make something a terror attack— every war causes terror. Terror attacks are designed to maximize terror in pursuit of political goals by targeting noncombatants

9

Anonymous #1 2w

Distribution of thousands of pagers without a mechanism to ensure that (1) it went to Hezbollah fighters and not civilians and (2) it went off only in active war zones is indiscriminate. It caused terror among the civilian population as healthcare workers threw out their pagers, people got rid of their phones, and so on. That is a terrorist attack.

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

Even if you want to use a term other than “terrorist attack”, it’s simply wrong.

-2

Anonymous OP 2w

What kind of mechanism could they have possibly established though?

8

Anonymous #1 2w

I can’t find the source that directly says he was a militant, but that article and every other says the pager was his. And the family was involved with Hezbollah, they wear Hezbollah emblems openly in a lot of photos

6

Anonymous #1 2w

There could be one, but I am not aware. That’s why you don’t booby-trap an item commonly used by non fighters. Hence why the Middle East and North Africa Director at Human Rights Watch said: “The use of an explosive device whose exact location could not be reliably known would be unlawfully indiscriminate…”

0

Anonymous #1 2w

That’s not evidence that he is a Hezbollah fighter, then.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

And I’m not saying it wasn’t wrong. So much of war is balancing protecting civilians at home from your enemy with protecting enemy civilians from your own military actions. I am very lucky to have never been in a war and I never want to be— I don’t know how anyone makes those choices. I’m saying the goal of this attack wasn’t to hurt civilians and they tried to minimize hurting civilians

6

Anonymous #1 2w

That by definition isn’t indiscriminate. It could be disproportionate harm to civilians, but it wasn’t indiscriminate

4

Anonymous #1 2w

It is indiscriminate as it does not uphold the distinction between civilians and combatants given location alone. A drone strike against military targets is not the same as booby-trapping, for example, even if a civilian may die in both situations.

-1

Anonymous OP 2w

Now we’re just getting into semantics

6

Anonymous #1 2w

Sure, though I guess either way my point is clear: booby-trapping thousands of items commonly used by civilians and detonating them in indiscriminate locations (including hospitals, grocery stores, funerals, family homes, etc), which inflicts terror upon the population due to its indiscriminate nature, is wrong if not outright a war crime and terrorism. It’s possible to condemn Hezbollah and condemn Israel for this act.

0

Anonymous OP 2w

And I’m saying the difference between this and a terror attack is the goal, intent, and effort taken to AVOID harm to civilians when the goal of a terror attack is to MAXIMIZE harm to civilians. This is a huge huge difference and it matters legally, morally, and when trying to make sense of a conflict

4

Anonymous #1 2w

With booby-trapping items at indiscriminate locations, I don’t think it’s possible to avoid a threshold of civilian terror that constitutes terrorism. Intent only matters so much compared to the facts.

1