[flagged]
[deleted]
Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
361–370 of 832 posts
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#362Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was flagged and enough people complained about censorship that is was resurrected with a pinned post from dang about how we should be civil
[flagged]
We stopped using the word 'civil' years ago.
Commenters here need to follow the rules, and the rules don't go away when the topic is a tough one. On the contrary, they apply more, as https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html makes clear.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
The intended targets of the exploding papers weren't civilians. Very few actual civilians ended up hurt by the detonations, much fewer than attacks by conventional weapons. It's about as targeted an attack as one can achieve from a distance. As an act of warfare, Israel did a splendid job on this. Thoroughly impressive work.
Yes, since conveniently the attacker also gets to define who is a civilian.
When one quotes Health Ministry for numbers of casualties and deaths, that is relying on HAMAS for information. To knowingly use sources that have demonstratbly be shown to be false, inaccurate, or misleading makes one also unreliable.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#364"please verify that you're feeling something different—quite different—from anger and a desire to fight this war." Um, why is it inappropriate to be outraged that international humanitarian lwas are actively being violated by Israel, in Gaza?
It's not inappropriate to be outraged. What's inappropriate is to post comments to Hacker News that vent aggression at other commenters and/or those on the other side of the conflict. Doing that is against both HN's rules and, more importantly, the intended spirit of this community (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html). A certain amount of processing or, if you like, metabolization needs to happen between those two steps.
As I say in many contexts, you may not owe the other side better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
Here's an analogy which may (or not) be helpful. Even in the middle of a war, it sometimes happens that enemies meet and discuss things. Such discussions won't help anything or anyone if they just consist of yelling at each other.
p.s. I appreciate your question and apologize that you had to reply here instead of to my comment itself (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46221528). We have to turn off replies on pinned comments, but I hate giving the impression that we don't want to hear responses or objections.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#365Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it? Do you have any data on how many of these devices ended up in civilian hands? Afaik they intercepted a shipment for Hamas members only. Do you have more information? How many civilians there even use these pagers instead of mobile phones? Are there any ?
>Afaik they intercepted a shipment for Hamas members only Ignoring that it was Hezbollah, not Hamas, I would point out that many of Hezbollah members are civilians.
Members of an organization that shoots missiles over international borders and stockpiles arms cannot be called civilians.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be considered terrorism. But it wasn't random devices, it was communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members for their own purposes.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
Targeted attacks against military/militia leadership is not terrorism - almost by definition. If it was just random devices exploding, then sure, that could be considered terrorism. But it wasn't random devices, it was communication devices procured by Hezbollah and directly given by Hezbollah to their own members for their own purposes.
The issue is that Israel has no idea where those pagers were at the time of the attack, civilians were directly hurt by the explosions: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/survivors-of-israels-page...
Israel had in fact very clear intelligence that the specific pagers they were detonating were overwhelmingly going to be in the custody of combatants. This was very probably the most precisely targeted large-scale military strike of the last 100 years. That's not a value judgement; it's a descriptive claim.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#368Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough, 12 total only includes the original pager attack, not the subsequent radio one. However, you seem to have made the same mistake. 42 people were killed total, but that does not mean that there were 42 targets. In any case, if Hezbollah themselves admit that 1500 of their fighters were injured by the attack (according to your own source), it seems extremely dishonest to claim that all 4000 were civilians o…
I didn't say 42 targets. Per the report: 42 dead, 12 of which were civilians. It follows that 30 were considered Hezbollah.
>I didn't say 42 targets.
You quite literally did.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Geneva Convention ought to have something to say about how a general may and may not be attacked. If I remember correctly, the assailant must be dressed in some sort of military uniform to be considered a prisoner of war if captured. Lacking the uniform, it would be espionage and no Geneva Convention rights. Obviously, neither side in the conflict is adhering to these rules. I should give this a read: https://en.…
>The Geneva Convention ought to have something to say about how a general may and may not be attacked. Except nobody in power actually gives a damn about the Geneva convention or the "laws of war" being thrown around in this topic. Those laws were made up so that victorious powers can bully smaller countries when they lose a war, but superpower nations themselves don't have to abide by them because there's nobody mor…
There are indeed actors who only respect might. That is not universal. Preaching might is right is also not universal.
It is still important to have might even if you aren't in that camp because inevitably you will run into people with that worldview and they cannot be reasoned with without might.
Re: Israel used Palantir technologies in pager attack in Lebanon
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
"The reports" are that 12 were killed total, not that 12 civilians were killed. Only 2 of the killed were civilians as far as I can tell. Several of those who people on Twitter tried to claim were civilians, including a doctor, were admitted by Hezbollah to be Hezbollah members and given Hezbollah funerals. I've never heard of "42 targets", and given 12 people died total, obviously 42 targets were not killed. You sho…
Incorrect. The reports are 42 total killed, 12 civilians including 2 children. "Operation Grim Beeper" (seriously) on Wikipedia cites these numbers from Lebanese government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Lebanon_electronic_device...
The figure of merit in a military strike is casualties, not KIA; it's the "wounded" part you actually care about (in fact, in some tactical situations, wounding is preferable to killing, as it ties up adversary logistical resources).
Since the pagers that were targeted were exclusively used by Hezbollah (which fought an actual civil war with the Lebanese security forces specifically in order to establish its own telecom network), I would be extraordinarily wary of any source that has claimed more injuries to noncombatants than to combatants.
You can still tell a story where the pager attack was unacceptable owing to civilian casualties: there could be so many civilian casualties that any number of combatant casualties wouldn't justify it. But if you're claiming that there were more casualties to noncombatants over small explosions from devices carried principally in the pockets of combatants, it is rational to draw the conclusion that your reasoning (and sourcing) is motivated.