SecureSignals
Civilization is simply a geno-memetic-techno-capital machine
No bio...
User ID: 853
So a boobytrapped suitcase is an IED, but a boobytrapped pager is a grenade or a drone strike?
All IEDs are "deliberately manufactured".
An improvised explosive device (IED) is a bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than in conventional military action. It may be constructed of conventional military explosives, such as an artillery shell, attached to a detonating mechanism. IEDs are commonly used as roadside bombs, or homemade bombs.
The term "IED" was coined by the British Army during the Northern Ireland conflict to refer to booby traps made by the IRA, and entered common use in the U.S. during the Iraq War.[1][2]
The term came into existence to describe IRA's boobytrapped explosives, like suitcases that would explode when you opened them. This operation is obviously on the level of "send a boobytrapped explosive suitcase" to someone, which is unambiguously an IED.
What specifically is the issue? Risk of collateral damage/deaths? Being sneaky and underhanded? Being unfair? Lack of targeting? Something else?
Boobytrapping goods which are shipped internationally with explosives is a terrible precedent. Explosives which can detonate anywhere, anytime, regardless of the target in the area.
What if peace had been brokered in the months since the distribution of those explosives? Then you are just left with a bunch of untracked explosives in civilian areas? It beggars belief that you struggle to find the issues with this practice.
These aren't "IEDs" any more than a hand grenade is an IED.
The purpose of an IED is to deceive people into thinking a bomb is an ordinary object. A hand grenade is a weapon of conventional warfare. Why are you so loathe to admit that this is obviously an IED, and not a hand grenade? Why detach yourself so much from reality? To pretend like this is just another chapter in the military history of hand grenades is just laughable. It's unprecedented.
It gives me a glimmer of hope that maybe future efforts by both Israel and others will look more like this and less like Gaza.
I'm trying to put myself in your state of mind- you think this action by Israel is an attempt by Israel to avoid what happened in Gaza to happen in Lebanon? And that if you want that, this is the best you could ask for? It's just not grounded in reality. If you don't want what happened in Gaza to happen in Lebanon you would not be cheering this on because it's obviously a major escalation of the conflict in that direction.
You said "this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel", which actually flies against everything you have said in this comment? Who is "we" in that context? Not the country at large or its interests? By "we" did you mean the sideline popcorn-eaters? Why would it be the best they could ask for?
Another follow-up, the Guardian is reporting that of the 9 killed, one was a 10-year old girl. I'm not trying to "won't someone think of the children!" here, I'm pointing out that Israeli IEDs don't magically not pose a threat to the civilians in the areas in which they are planted.
I think this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel.
Why didn't they make the US aware of it, then? Because they know the US would have opposed it to avoid escalating the conflict. So "this is about as great a scenario that we could possibly ask for from Israel" is so far from the US foreign policy position on this conflict, where are you even getting that from?
Why is the US foreign policy apparatus intent on avoiding escalation into a regional conflict but you're indifferent to it?
Has the CIA done this in the war on terror? No, it hasn't. You know who has done this? Insurgents and Mossad.
The US was apparently not even in the loop on this operation, also making this another demonstration of Israel's insolence. The CIA would not have approved of this attack and it has not done similar attacks in its own War on Terror.
FYI these were improvised bombs detonated in crowded marketplaces. That's why I said they are terrorist tactics. This is not a tactic the US has engaged in in its war on terror.
This is incredibly disingenuous Hoffmeister. In the first place because, a single video instance is not enough to prove the statement "these explosives were not a danger to anybody standing near the person holding them". But even more so because you have no idea what injuries the people around may have suffered. Just because someone runs away doesn't mean they aren't injured.
What I find hard to understand is why don't you just admit that these explosives do create danger for the civilians around them, and then just say it's justified? We don't have any notion for how many non-Hezbollah may have been injured. But we have video evidence of one detonating within a few feet from children.
If those children were standing on the other side of that fruit stand, they would have been head-level with the bomb. So say it was "no threat to them" is just an obvious lie.
Actually, the practice of using hidden/planted IEDs has had a terrible civilian casualty ratio which is why the United States does not use this tactic. That's not to say every single instance has harmed civilians, many IEDs in Iraq only killed Americans. But as a practice it's not considered good to flood public/civilian areas with hidden explosives, that is a terrorist tactic.
That is absurd, obviously a bomb in a crowded place is a danger to people standing near the person with the hidden bomb. We don't have any numbers on civilian casualties yet, the ideas that these bombs didn't harm anybody standing near them strikes me as extremely improbable.
Ok? It's obviously an IED. Traditionally, terrorists and insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan have used IEDs to target American military personnel within planted, hidden explosives. Now Israel is using IEDs for the same purpose against Hezbollah. So why object to my statement that Israel is embracing/normalizing tactics using by terrorists? Just admit they are and argue it's a good thing if you're inclined.
A drone strike also requires a chain of command to strike a certain target at a certain place, an IED does not. So some of these may have been detonated in schools, hospitals, or diplomatic facilities, crowded markets, places which would not be targets for drone strikes following a chain of command. Apparently the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon was injured, was the Iranian ambassador a target? There's no accountability like there would be for a drone strike.
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan also planted many well-placed IEDs which only harmed American military personnel. That is regarded as a terrorist tactic regardless. And obviously this attack is closer to an attack by IEDs than it is to a drone strike.
These are not "bombs in a market", because that implies that the market, in general, suffers the harmful effects of the bomb.
Obviously a bombing in a market causes the market to suffer the harmful effects? What are you even denying at this point? It causes obviously immediate disruption and panic and potential injury to bystanders. In the long term it creates fear and instability.
You think this is closer to a drone strike than it is to an IED?
My objection is that IEDs in marketplaces are a terrorist tactic, and that we are probably closer to this becoming normalized.
The US has already deployed an enormous naval presence to the region. It has vowed to defend Israel if it is attacked. The prospect of joining the war is very real, and it is already costing the US billions of dollars in aid and the expenditures involved in dedicating so much naval power to defending Israel.
It's also a diplomatic rebuff. The Biden administration has made its position clear- to avoid a regional conflict. For good reason. Obviously the Biden Administration does not believe this is in the best interests of the US. You can say that they are wrong, but to pretend "we just can't know if this is in our interests" is incredibly naive. What exactly does the US stand to gain from more war on behalf of Israel? How does the US benefit from a regional war? It doesn't, it can only be costly.
Everything you are saying now could have, and was, said on the eve of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
Do you have specific reasons to believe that this hypothetical war will be more like Syria, and less like the Iran-Iraq War (two Middle Eastern countries going at it, the West basically unaffected) or the Six-Day War?
The Six-Day War led to an intractable quagmire in the entire region. But there is plenty of reason to suggest this will turn into a protracted conflict. Israel wasn't able to pacify Gaza in six months, much less six days. Against Hezbollah? Yeah, that's going to look more like Syria and Iraq/Afghanistan than the Six Day War because Hezbollah is more well-armed, financed, they are experienced fighters. They are entrenched. There is very good reason the Biden administration's policy is a negotiated settlement and not a regional war.
Obviously if they want a full-scale war it makes sense to do this. I said it doesn't make sense unless they want a full-scale war.
I guess it's strange to on one hand say, you only care if someone you know personally is drafted, and then on the other hand admit that these other wars have had terrible consequences. But since you don't know what the impact of war on Lebanon and Iran will be, you are indifferent as to whether or not the US goes to war with those countries?
It sounds like you're just carrying water, honestly.
I don't think it's uncharitable of me to suspect that you're making this false equivalence because you hate Jews, Mr SS.
Ok, what's the real equivalence? Is this attack closer to a terrorist attack, or is it closer to something the US has done in decades of waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan? Can you point to any conduct in the US in engaging in those wars that compares to this? It's unprecedented, and the closest base of comparison are terrorist attacks. If you don't agree, you can just point me to where the US has engaged in this in its own "War on Terrorism".
Iraq and Afghanistan and Syria all being strong data points that ME war has negative effects on the home-front doesn't persuade you? Or maybe you don't think Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syrian wars have had negatives impacts on the US and Europe?
Israel can defend itself and stop trying to use terrorist tactics to draw the United States into another ME war.
I don’t particularly care if there is a “regional war” or not, provided that nobody I personally care about gets conscripted to fight in it
That's a really silly perspective. So if it causes a lot of damage to your home country- economically, politically, geopolitically, militarily, you don't care as long as you don't know someone who was conscripted?
I don’t know, this just seems too badass and super-competent to not inspire some level of positive reaction among people who are not already committed to the pro-Hezbollah position
Some of us don't want a regional war, but Israel obviously does. What is the point of this except provocation? Intermingling hidden explosives among civilian populations is not impressive, it's called terrorism.
Israeli Terrorism?
It dovetails with our recent discussion of how Israel has normalized the practice of assassination as a core strategy of warfare. And now watching these videos of pagers exploding reminds me of the videos I've seen of Islamic terrorism: Life going on as normal in a marketplace or something, then an explosion with women and children around. We will get more details about the deaths/injuries, but there are rumors of an Iranian ambassador being injured and there will most likely be injuries among women and children across Lebanon and Syria.
I just don't understand the point of an operation like this except to provoke fear and a regional conflict. It's not going to cause Hezbollah to surrender or significantly disrupt their wartime capabilities at the northern front. It's just a terrorist attack. Is the US going to publicly disavow this, or is rote terrorism now going to be normalized by Israeli operation in the region?
The term came into existence to describe the bombs made by the IRA, which was based on a preference of presentation. Things like suitcases boobytrapped to explode were what gave IED its name. A boobytrapped pager with hidden explosives is obviously comparable to a boobytrapped suitcase with hidden explosives, and the name "IED" was made to describe those things as opposed to conventional weapons.
This isn't just a wordplay either- the US and CIA haven't done anything like this. The IRA has. The insurgency in Iraq has. It obviously falls under that category of mode of waging warfare.
More options
Context Copy link