Israel declares war on Hamas

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Leondros

Disagree given the size of the devices and explosions. Watch the videos, was no shrapnel. The only targets were the holders of the devices. Read up on the definition of terrorism and get back to me.

If a bunch of American or Canadian off duty soldiers during wartime had their devices being blown up at grocery stores, hockey games, in their homes with exactly the same magnitude,we would be having a much different discussion and everyone would be calling it terrorism.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

When you are targeting devices of people without knowing where they are and knowing that humans are typically around civilians, that is terrorism.

Its. collateral damage. Terrorism in my opinion requires intent to terrorize the civilian population. I think you are reasonable in holding the opinion that this level of collateral damage is unacceptable. That doesn’t make it terrorism.

For it to be terrorism it needs to have the goal of targeting the civilians.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

If a bunch of American or Canadian off duty soldiers during wartime had their devices being blown up at grocery stores, hockey games, in their homes with exactly the same magnitude,we would be having a much different discussion and everyone would be calling it terrorism.

If the Russians did it we’d be at war and they would be under continuing bombardment resulting the the collateral deaths of many civilians. You are probably right that some would call it terrorism. Those people would be wrong.

It would start WW3 certainly.

How would it be different than Pearl Harbour which killed 38 civilians? I don’t think that is considered a terrorist strike.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Its. collateral damage. Terrorism in my opinion requires intent to terrorize the civilian population. I think you are reasonable in holding the opinion that this level of collateral damage is unacceptable. That doesn’t make it terrorism.

For it to be terrorism it needs to have the goal of targeting the civilians.

It sounds like you disagree with the UN definition. But even then, you see how this could quite easily cause feelings of terror in the general population too, right?
Is this person I'm standing behind in line going to get blown up by Mossad?

I bought this used phone, but I don't know if it's safe. Who's was it before me? Does it have a bomb in it?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It sounds like you disagree with the UN definition. But even then, you see how this could quite easily cause feelings of terror in the general population too, right?
Is this person I'm standing behind in line going to get blown up by Mossad?

I bought this used phone, but I don't know if it's safe. Who's was it before me? Does it have a bomb in it?

Does the UN have a definition? My understanding was no one has agreed to what terrorism is formally.

https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/c...e/3/terrorism/

criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” The Security Council recalls that such acts are “under no circumstances justifiable by considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or other similar nature

Do you like this one from a UN resolution? It requires criminal acts, not really applicable in the war scenario we are in as it would state even killing the Hezbolah person would be terrorism

How about 1999

any . . . act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.”

Requires intent to harm civilians as opposed to collateral damage


The EU definitions essentially have a Carve out for War.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry with a few more definitions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism

Which one do you like?

I will happily call this terrorism if the intent of the action was to harm or terrorize civilians rather than the result of the actions. And with Israel’s history this certainly is a possibility.

[Fuzz]

LOL, I guess you missed me posting on the previous page, I thought you were carrying on the discussion...

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by WCW Nitro

If a bunch of American or Canadian off duty soldiers during wartime had their devices being blown up at grocery stores, hockey games, in their homes with exactly the same magnitude,we would be having a much different discussion and everyone would be calling it terrorism.

During wartime? I don't care what the propaganda machine would say, but it would be an act of war, not terrorism.

If Ukraine did this to Russians today, what would most people say? I know the answer, and its contradictory to how many are posting in here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leondros

During wartime? I don't care what the propaganda machine would say, but it would be an act of war, not terrorism.

If Ukraine did this to Russians today, what would most people say? I know the answer, and its contradictory to how many are posting in here.

If Russia did it to Ukraine, would that contradict it as well?

What if Lebanon did it to Israel?

[Leondros]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If Russia did it to Ukraine, would that contradict it as well?

What if Lebanon did it to Israel?

I think the lens of Ukraine vs Russia is relevant as it is the other current war ongoing and Ukraine is where the majority if not all the support is. Its helpful to frame it in such a way for people to think of their biases. I invite you to do the same.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Leondros

I think the lens of Ukraine vs Russia is relevant as it is the other current war ongoing and Ukraine is where the majority if not all the support is. Its helpful to frame it in such a way for people to think of their biases. I invite you to do the same.

I’d wager there are more fans of Russia than there are of Hezbollah, so I really question what biases this is attempting to confront. It’s doing the opposite and reinforcing them.

What does “You don’t like this group, so what if another group you also don’t like were targets?” accomplish that flipping the frame to a target that is actually empathetic or close to home doesn’t?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

civilians are also legitimate targets in war and always have been

Weird warped pov. You're basically advocating indiscriminate killing as legitimate?

[WCW Nitro]

Originally Posted by Leondros

During wartime? I don't care what the propaganda machine would say, but it would be an act of war, not terrorism.

If Ukraine did this to Russians today, what would most people say? I know the answer, and its contradictory to how many are posting in here.

So just to be clear, since America is arming Israel let's say prior to a sports game there is a military ceremony honoring soldiers you think it would not be terrorism if some soldiers were targeted right inside the arena let's say at puck drop if they were doing that? Or that since military service is mandatory in Israel anyone of a certain age is a valid target no matter where they are ( which incidentally would make the music festival massacre on Oct 7 not be terrorism according to this since it was full of young people).

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Weird warped pov. You're basically advocating indiscriminate killing as legitimate?

the rules of war have always allowed for killing civilians, and mostly in an indiscriminate manner to be frank, you drop a bomb from 15,000 feet up onto a factory in Hanoi or Dresden you are going to kill thousands of civilians, that munitions base that blew up in Russia, I would bet money the workers in it and a few poor schmoes that live close by died as well

I'm not advocating it, just realize that once you go to war you kill a certain amount of civilians and legally that's ok

Morally? of course it's not ok, should Hamas and Hezbollah immediately surrender to prevent the deaths of civilians, I'm guessing you would disagree with that

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

the rules of war have always allowed for killing civilians, and mostly in an indiscriminate manner to be frank, you drop a bomb from 15,000 feet up onto a factory in Hanoi or Dresden you are going to kill thousands of civilians, that munitions base that blew up in Russia, I would bet money the workers in it and a few poor schmoes that live close by died as well

I'm not advocating it, just realize that once you go to war you kill a certain amount of civilians and legally that's ok

Morally? of course it's not ok, should Hamas and Hezbollah immediately surrender to prevent the deaths of civilians, I'm guessing you would disagree with that

Did Lebanon go to war with Israel? Who declared it? This isn't war in any traditional sense.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Did Lebanon go to war with Israel? Who declared it? This isn't war in any traditional sense.

well firing 3000 rockets into Israel is a pretty emphatic declaration of war

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

well firing 3000 rockets into Israel is a pretty emphatic declaration of war

By who? Was it the government of Lebanon? Was it in retaliation, or a first strike?

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

By who? Was it the government of Lebanon? Was it in retaliation, or a first strike?

none of that matters really, it's a just a war like any other, in pretty much every war both sides think they are right, both sides probably have some claim
Hezbolah is a huge part of the State of Lebanon, as everyone constantly says they run hospitals and clinics, they enforce law in their areas

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Well here is one definition from the UN(note their is no agreed upon legal definition, which is why I sent Azure hunting to find ANY that not call this terrorism).


And another from the UN:
https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrori...terrorism.html

You can argue whether it is right or not, but I don't think you can argue it isn't terrorism. And you absolutely can not in any way reasonably argue that Israel hasn't committed many terrorist acts and continues to do so.

Found your post. These definitions require intent to kill civilians not indifference. I do t know how you can conclude based on these definitions that this is terrorism without evidence of Israel’s intent.

The first one requires a criminal act which if you go to the EU link on terrorism they specifically exempt times of war from the criminal act part otherwise all war is terrorism.

How do you believe that these attacks fit the first sentence
“A]cts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public”

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

none of that matters really, it's a just a war like any other, in pretty much every war both sides think they are right, both sides probably have some claim
Hezbolah is a huge part of the State of Lebanon, as everyone constantly says they run hospitals and clinics, they enforce law in their areas

Your position makes no sense. You’re saying it’s legal to target civilians (it’s not) and talking about other “legal” things and the “rules of war,” but then you’re making about who is at war with who and saying it doesn’t matter? lol

How can there be rules and how can those rules matter if none of it matters?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Found your post. These definitions require intent to kill civilians not indifference. I do t know how you can conclude based on these definitions that this is terrorism without evidence of Israel’s intent.

The first one requires a criminal act which if you go to the EU link on terrorism they specifically exempt times of war from the criminal act part otherwise all war is terrorism.

How do you believe that these attacks fit the first sentence
“A]cts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public”

I don't want to be glib, but it's the bit right after where you ended the quote, for some reason.


", a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes"


This was an attack on "a group of people", and also "particular persons for political purposes". So that's how I read it.