this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024

200 points (96.7% liked)

Not The Onion

12362 readers

536 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

Links to news stories from...
...credible sources, with...
...their original headlines, that...
...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

kescusay@lemmy.world

200

Israel using trebuchet to fire flaming projectile at Hezbollah (www.newsweek.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Linkerbaan@lemmy.world to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world

30 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Israeli soldiers on the northern border have been seen using a medieval catapult-like weapon to shoot flaming projectiles into Lebanon, igniting plantations to prevent Hezbollah fighters from infiltrating into the south.

Footage widely shared on social media shows the soldiers loading a trebuchet and flinging fireballs into Lebanese territory. "This is a local initiative and not a tool that is widely used," the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement, denying that this is a widely adopted tactic by the forces.

top 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] moon@lemmy.ml 82 points 5 months ago

"We are the only democracy in the region. We must defend ourselves against this barbaric group who have a medieval world-view."

"'...Fire up the trebuchets"

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 71 points 5 months ago (1 children)

igniting plantations to prevent Hezbollah fighters from infiltrating into the south.

Yeah, that's not the real reason. Might be a secondary reason, but just like in Gaza, destruction of food sources and civilian property is NOT incidental. It's very much a deliberate tactic, which is a war crime.

[+] masquenox@lemmy.world -24 points 5 months ago (1 children)

destruction of food sources and civilian property

Sooo... just bog-standard "counter-insurgency," then?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 28 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No. Just because the US military does it with impunity doesn't mean it's standard and not a war crime.

[+] masquenox@lemmy.world -6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Strange... I could swear it was the exact same strategy used by colonialist forces since colonialism began, including every European power in Africa, right up to modern-day conflicts such as the Anglo-Malayan War, the Vietnam War, and pretty much everything Israel has done right up to this very day.

Are you saying it was all war crimes?

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Strange... I could swear it was the exact same strategy used by colonialist forces since colonialism began

Yeah, international humanitarian laws weren't codified because nobody was doing things that they should never do..

Are you saying it was all war crimes?

All the instances of targeting civilians and food sources as a weapon of war? You bet your ass I am.

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No, it was added to the Geneva convention in 1977

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation_(crime)

[+] masquenox@lemmy.world -12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No, it was added to the Geneva convention in 1977

So something is only evil once a pack of institutionalized racketeers writes a bunch of legalese about it?

[–] FiskFisk33@startrek.website 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well, the question was on the practice's legality, not its morality.

So yes.

[–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends on whether you define a crime as a "legal" bad action or a "moral" bad action. While the latter may be problematic, because anyone can have different values, it is still widely considered a bad thing to kill people who did not do anything.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Depends on whether you define a crime as a “legal” bad action or a “moral” bad action.

Is that all there is to it, though? The backlash against Israel since Oct 7 isn't adequately explained by either... neither is the generalized silence on Israel's behavior before Oct 7.

I'm reminded here of Sun Tzu's concept of "moral law" - which neither concerns itself with morality nor law, but rather the credibility of the actors in question.

[–] aisteru@lemmy.aisteru.ch 1 points 5 months ago

I am by far not an expert on this matter, but my understanding is that if people started becoming vocal about that, it's because most people did not really care or know about the situation until Oct 7, and were bathed in a swarm of news articles since then. It's hard not to have an opinion on something you know nothing about when you hear about it daily.

[–] ebc@lemmy.ca 29 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Well, it is the superior siege engine.

[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago

preferred superior siege engine

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 16 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Just like the Old Testament!

[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That's the only testament they know.

[–] Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 5 months ago

The new testament was just as boring. I gave it a 3/10. Plot point was all over the place, inconsistencies , unbelievable characters ,and the motivation seemed force. Would not recommend.

[–] Knuschberkeks@feddit.de 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I might be wrong, but didn't Einstein say something about WW3 being fought with a club? Maybe this is the beginning of that developement back to the roots.

[–] Two9A@lemmy.world 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

"I do not know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Albert Einstein.

Snopes says this sentiment was actually expressed by Einstein, though perhaps not in this exact phrasing.

[–] Inductor@feddit.de 8 points 5 months ago

relevant xkcd

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 months ago

WW4

[–] LordWiggle@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

Shooting balls of fire might be medieval, but the IDF doesn't care about rules of war and Geneva convention anyway. "eh war crime shmore crime, am I right?"

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Slightly more HD version here on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgJmAK-MxhQ

[–] Lmaydev@programming.dev 7 points 5 months ago

"catapult like" they fucking wish

[–] DolphinMath@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

For what it’s worth, this is the only article I can find that says it was for burning “plantations.”

From NBC News

The official said that while the weapon was not sanctioned by military leadership, the troops were fulfilling a legitimate military task of burning away thick shrubbery along the border where Hezbollah fighters sometimes hide.

Or, if you prefer an outlet with a different perspective…

From Middle East Eye

Israeli media suggested that launching projectiles into Lebanon was aimed at exposing Hezbollah fighters using the dense foliage as cover in the area. It could also be in preparation for a ground invasion.

[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

What israel is allowed to do it create a buffer zone within their own territories. Move back their Nazi colony.

What israel is not allowed to do is create a buffer zone in Lebanon by burning farmland and acres to the ground. Which they subsequently use as excuse to expand their Lebensraum on.

[–] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago