HappycamperNZ @ HappycamperNZ @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

1,281

Joined

2 yr. ago

Depends on your defined of terrorism, and what these actions are.

The usual one i see is to the effect of "non state actor using violence against a civilization population to further political objectives". By that one:

• no, Israel is a state
• violence, yes.
• civilian population is a maybe, depending on your definition of Hezbollah actions and position. Are they civilians, combatants, terrorists themselves?
• further political objectives is likely, however I don't see what the objective is. Kill people we don't like is murder, not terrorism.

Of note, if its not a terrorist act it could very well be an act of war, invoking the right of self defense (Art 30???). If so, and civilian casualties weren't minimized its leading towards war crime territory. I wouldn't say it was - small explosive, on an object usually carried by the target, which was unlikely to be used by civilians.

Israel could use the same article to call this attack self defense against actions already taken. You can look at gulf War for the whole discussion around preemptive strikes for self defense.

Personally, I say no. Same way Chinese vessels "only" ramming and using waterguns on Philippine vessels isn't terrorism.

That's a very weak arguement - you're communicating with the embassy and ambassador of a recognized country.

I would have called it a glass factory. Means I can snicker every time I tell someone.

Pagers are one directional, and cant be traced.

To view a different way, why do they have a pager, rather than just calling an embassy, "state department" or cell phone?

Don't mess with Americas boats

How did something that only killed 10 targets injure thousands, especially when you are considering explosives.

I don't think I could injure 1000s of civilians with only 10 targets killed with an explosive hidden on their person if I tried.

Close - you're looking at letter, not action and intentions.

Booby traps are banned for use in ways that are likely to be used by civilians and remove protections on the civilian population. Things like placing explosives on public transport, the side of the road, in marketplaces or protected places. Targeted strikes, like on a piece of civilian equipment that is likely to only be used by the target (cellphone, personal vehicle, laptop) are permitted as they are unlikely to be set off by a random civilian.

What is a question, however, is if the targets were actually combatants.

That's a warcrime

Correct.

Killing civilians isn't a war crime. Deliberately killing civilians, or not taking reasonable steps to minimize civilian casualties is a war crime.

"Small" explosive that is embedded in something passed to and likely worn by the target is unlikely to be a war crime. If they somehow snuck a 1000lb bomb into one it absolutely would be however.

Fat electrician had a great video on this.

Soo accurate that if the target is in a car you need to know what seat.

How do you have less votes than the wrong person?

Headbangers was a great little addictive game.

There was arguement and reviews that COD 2 had overdone the first person shooter, and we were exhausted of the WW2 repeats.

Whats modern warfare, modern warfare (deliberately repeated), battlefield and Black ops variations up too?

Care to elaborate? Because what I'm seeing is that you want those imprisoned, who are deliberately separated from society and deprived them of rights like personal freedom, to have the same rights and access to advancement?

Make no mistake, im not saying deprive them of basic human right - the prison system is bad enough. But they are meant to be deprived of freedom.

I mean, sure? If someone goes to prison you probably don't want them making a full time wage, while having everything else paid for. Its meant to be worse than living out.

Different discussions can and should be held if they are being forced to work, for profit prisons, or options to work and gain skills or experience in trades, or to fund study. But at a surface level it sounds fair.

How nice of them

That we know of....

Oh crap, you're right. Effective range 140 yard.

.270 or 30-06 it is then.

Edit: one of our politicians had a dido thrown at him. Ill keep my shoe.

FFS

Thats a 300-500m shot. You could hit him with an off the shelf scoped .22 (effective range140 yd). I'd personally go for a .270 but wonder if he's worth the extra cost... imagine the headline, killed by one of the smallest calibers in common use.

And why the fuck would you stick the barrel through the fence??

Same in NZ

Most stadiums don't have a public carpark - or a very small one. Free busses with your ticket.