• PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    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

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 hour ago

      No, the distinction being made between article 4 and 5 is intended to separate intentionally and mindfully placed mines on military objectives where the risk of civilian injury is low and explosives that are ‘remotely sent’ where the locations must be accurately recorded to prevent accidental discharge after the conflict has ceased.

      I see no way to argue that they can ensure the pagers or radios were placed on such ‘military targets’, nor can they account or record the locations of any that failed to discharge. For all the Lebanese know, there are pagers or radios still in circulation that did not explode on the day of the attack, or that there are more explosives in other mobile devices that have yet to be activated, or were abandoned for use for whatever reason and may go off unexpectedly in the future. It is exactly that uncertainty and the use of everyday objects that makes this terror attack a war crime - not that it matters to a body that has been completely neutered and is incapable of holding Israel accountable without the consent of the US.

      Hiding behind the verbiage of the UN charter is cowardly.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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.