1 2 3
Mr_Asa
Mr_Asa MegaDork
9/18/24 7:50 p.m.
4cylndrfury said:

I had a whole witty retort put together...but I think dialogue with someone arguing in bad faith is effort poorly spent.

Instead, I'd like to suggest that we all like wheel flares and imma stick to that topic...

Ive never argued in bad faith.

Thats literally the only part of your post I'm concerned with.  If you dont wanna answer it, cool.  Dont accuse me of arguing in bad faith when I'm responding to your post, though.

Pete. (l33t FS)
Pete. (l33t FS) MegaDork
9/18/24 7:53 p.m.
Stampie said:

In reply to 4cylndrfury :

But the big question is are box flares ok on a jellybean car?

Nope.

Round cars get round, edged cars get edges, and never the twain shall meet.

(Yes these are not box flares. No I don't care. Gartrac flares on a MkII are the dogs ballocks)

GameboyRMH
GameboyRMH MegaDork
9/18/24 8:34 p.m.

Ran across an article on whether any of these devices rigged with bombs could legally qualify as booby-traps:

https://www.justsecurity.org/100193/law-war-exploding-pagers-lebanon/

The most troublesome issue for Israel would be that they were used in civilian areas and potentially around civilians without warning, and with only a reasonable assumption but no assurance that they were being carried by an enemy combatant at the time. The solar systems could be even more legally troublesome if they weren't installed on something that could pass for enemy military infrastructure.

4cylndrfury
4cylndrfury MegaDork
9/18/24 8:37 p.m.
Stampie said:

In reply to 4cylndrfury :

But the big question is are box flares ok on a jellybean car?

Everyone knows box flares make everything awesomer

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
9/18/24 10:02 p.m.

In reply to GameboyRMH :

While there are some legal questions, made murkier by the fact that the targets were non-state actors, the fundamental issue, as with all UN agreements, is enforcement. There is no mechanism for doing so, and any attempt to create one in the UN Security Council will surely fail. Like all UN armament agreements, this one exists mostly so that governments can point indignantly to how it's being violated by their opponents (the only meaningful arms control agreements tend to be bilateral, with mutually-agreed verification and enforcement protocols built in); no country with sane leadership has any expectation that it will be adhered to, or that failure to do so can be addressed by any legal mechanism.

03Panther
03Panther PowerDork
9/18/24 10:36 p.m.
4cylndrfury said:
Stampie said:

In reply to 4cylndrfury :

But the big question is are box flares ok on a jellybean car?

Everyone knows box flares make everything awesomer

I gotta stick with Pete on his take! 
but 'round here I've seen rounded edge classified as box flares, so you are correct, also laugh

03Panther
03Panther PowerDork
9/18/24 10:49 p.m.
Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Not as ruthless as the US leaving highly overpowered ammunition behind in Vietnam, of course.  Allegedly some of that is still around, 50+ years later!

When I saw folks up in arms about so called children being hurt, my first thought was "they probably ain't old enough to known folks blown up by 6 year old Vietnamese kids. I am.

I don't know the whole story, but then, neither does any of the folks in minor disagreements here. 

And yes, I apologize to all here: my punctuation and grammar sucks. Always has. Put my effort into learning other things. 

RichardNZ
RichardNZ HalfDork
9/19/24 3:13 a.m.

Too soon??

 


 

02Pilot
02Pilot PowerDork
9/19/24 8:45 a.m.
Duke said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

Mistakes do happen, as in that bombing raid.

But my point was that the Israelis neither knew nor cared who was carrying those pagers when they blew up.

But I have been screamed at before for suggesting that Israel is anything but blameless, so I think I will ignore this thread too.

I don't know that your statement is factually accurate. Israel may not have known who was carrying each individual device at the time of detonation, but they certainly had sound reasons for believing that a significant portion of them would be carried by the people to whom they were issued by Hezbollah. Further, if Israel did not care who was carrying them (implying that this was an indiscriminate act), why go to such lengths when there are far cheaper, easier methods of killing random people? It would seem there is every chance that Israel had preferences for specific targets, and conducted an operation with good chances of those targets being affected; as in every such operation, the possibility for collateral damage existed and was, in this case, deemed acceptable.

As I've said before, I don't assign blame. States and non-state actors determine policy, and people carry it out. Sometimes that involves killing people and breaking things. It's just war.

1 2 3

You'll need to log in to post.

Our Preferred Partners
oi3vqYO7AbgQiOQBpDHSYcbQW9sTp4zQRNVfk4KMst6F1u3s4wxjBpxhPsinGJSq