“We welcome international tourist money, don’t worry; we’ll only execute those in our own country too poor to avoid the law.”

No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines

Landmines are addressed entirely separately, but thanks for confirming you don’t have the first clue you’re talking about.

Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.

“How dare you quote the law when talking about the law”

Sorry, your feelings on the matter override international law, I know.

Cool. You got a plan to do that inside of the next month-and-spare-change?

Please, point out to me which prohibition here was violated.

Didn’t say it was a good look. In fact, I quite explicitly noted that it was a shit move and likely a war crime. Just probably not because of international law on booby traps, but because of international law on discriminate use of force.

I think you’re splitting hairs.

I think you’re looking for excuses. Fuck’s sake, splitting hairs? That’s quite literally the legal fucking definition.

Ordinary objects, when used as the vector for unexpected explosive discharge, become something distrustful and fearsome.

You’re right, that’s also why maskirovka is illegal. If you disguise a tank as a house, what comes next?

/s

Also why anti-tank landmines are illegal. If you disguise an explosive under a road, what other dastardly things can you do?

/s

Fucking for the Zionist takeover of the glorious Islamic Republic

It was a war crime in 2008 when a bomb was disguised as a spare tire in an SUV used to kill the head of Hezbollah’s international operations, whether we agree the target needed to be taken out or not. A drone strike would be “lawful” a car bomb is not.

Far from an uncontested view, at least insofar as why it was a war crime.

This essay argues that making a military object appear to be a civilian object—such as disguising a bomb as an SUV’s spare tire—is a permissible ruse of war, not a prohibited act of perfidy, as long as the civilian object in question does not receive special protection under international humanitarian law (IHL). It nevertheless concludes that Mughniyah’s killing was, in fact, perfidious, because outside of an active combat zone a remotely detonated explosive device disguised as a civilian object must be located in the close vicinity of a military objective, which the SUV was not.

2. “Booby-trap” means any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches an apparently harmless object or performs an apparently safe act.

As these were remotely detonated, they do not fit the definition of a booby trap. Rather, the issue becomes a war crime because of Israel’s choice to detonate, which was very likely done in a manner that was reckless and without regard for collateral damage.

I hope you aren’t saying what I think you’re saying here.

That Israel has established a death grip on American politics since the 1980s?

In any case, the main reason for western support of Israel is the same as the reason for western support of Turkey. Both have obnoxious leadership but both are in key geographic locations, and the value of having them on-side against their neighbours is greater than the value in cutting them loose.

Gonna press X to doubt. Turkiye controls one of the most vital straits in the world. Israel primarily specializes in antagonizing its neighbors, many of whom are also our close allies, damaging our international reputation, pouring money in to corrupt our domestic political processes (not that we really need help with that, but the corruption becomes more pro-Israel), while murdering American citizens and selling American secrets to our enemies.

It’s insane. Shows how much of international politics isn’t “Which country benefits from what”, but “What levers of decisionmaking are manipulated by whom”. A little lobbying and foreign PR goes a long way.

Red line: invasion of Ukraine

Response: F-22s over Ukrainian skies

Sabotaging dual-use communications devices that are used, specifically, by members of an enemy paramilitary group is not a clear-cut war crime. On the other hand, there is a very strong argument that ‘blind-firing’ such devices en-masse without regard for the proximity of civilians or possibility of civilian harm is a war crime via insufficiently discerning use of force. But even that is something that could probably be argued in a legitimately-unbiased international court - not that it’ll ever fucking get to one, considering Israel’s history with international courts.

Either way, it’s a shite move that was only meant to escalate the situation so Bibi can stay in power a few more minutes. Vile shit.

I am well aware that Hamas, the faction supported by Israel to undercut Fatah so Israel wouldn’t have to take a two-state solution seriously, are a bunch of shitheads.

Not really sure what that has to do with my point.

I don’t know what the numbers are like for the Lebanon part of the war, obviously, but in almost all modern conflicts we see that between 25 and 80% of casualties are civilians.

Bruh, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where Coalition forces were (rightly) condemned for using insufficiently discriminate force, our civilian casualty rate ranged from 15%-30%, with the higher proportion present in Iraq during the initial stages of the ‘shock and awe’ invasion.

Gonna go ahead and say if Israel is getting significantly worse numbers than in Fallujah, with the US in Fallujah having 2004-era tech and intel in a region that we were not well-established in, and Israel having 20 years of development in computerization of the military and a long-standing intelligence presence in the area, something is seriously fucked.

I imagine we’re on the high end here as hezbollah like to fight and hide amongst civilians and use them as shields.

Firing from a populated residential area in order to use civilians as a shield is commonly accepted as a war crime.

Likewise, indiscriminately shelling the residential area in response is also commonly accepted as a war crime.

I struggle to see how you can combat such an organization without heavy civilian casualties, no matter how you go about it. I’m not saying the Israelis are not making mistakes or even being disproportionate at times, but I just can’t see how you’re going to fight hezbollah without heavy collateral damage.

Like I said - I’m not unsympathetic to the fact that collateral damage IS going to happen. But Israel’s actions have been anything but proportionate.

It’s a question of proportionality. I’m generally sympathetic to the impossibility of waging war without civilian collateral damage, but Israel is clearly taking very little care to minimize civilian casualties with indiscriminate artillery fire and air strikes, and on the heels of an already legally questionable attack on Hezbollah just previously.

Civilians die in war. It’s ugly. I get that. But there’s no excuse for any supposedly modern and civilized state to not attempt to minimize civilian casualties proportional to the military objectives targeted.

No, because I am done listening to BS appeals to stuff literally generations in the past.

I love that you began this by appealing to the history of the issue (that Israel, according to your claim, didn’t immediately rev up to genocide), and when the actual history of the issue is brought up, you balk.

No, this is straight up propaganda. Zionism is simply Israel existing peacefully.

Would you like to outline for me the development of the Zionist project in the 20s, 30s, and 40s?

It’s really quite miserable that Israel has chosen to fuck the people of Lebanon over in all of this when Hezbollah is a legitimately shitty terrorist org. But unfortunately, that seems par for the course for Israel.