Any child death is tragic, but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare. It is safe to believe that everyone that was given a pager for secret communication by a terrorist group, is associated with such group, probably in a military capacity. Furthermore, videos show that extremely close bystanders are left unhurt.

I think this only goes out to show that criticism towards Israel waging warfare is not really about the way that warfare is fought, but really on the right of Israel to fight at all. As no one in history has achieved a more precise attack in urban setting towards a non-uniformed organization ever.

> but this is really one of the most targeted strikes in the history of warfare.

You are making that up and quoting yourself. There was not a single fire-control system onboard these pagers; there was no visual designation of the target, and no confirmation that it was being carried by it's owners. The target was broadly designated and not even discriminated on a case-by-case basis. A button was pressed, and consequences including the death of a child are now in play.

Israel has the capability to field targeted strikes on their own using domestic Litening and SPICE munitions (not to say they don't end up targeting civilians anyways). The unforunate bottom line is that this was an indiscriminate and presumptive attack that generally relies on a complete disregard for collateral damage. Innocent bystanders died, ones that would not be targeted by any morally accountable soldier in the command-and-control loop. That means an error was made, in civilized armies.

Thousands were injured, yes. How many of the thousands injured belonged to Hezbollah? It’s a safe bet that the majority of injuries were sustained by owners of these Hezbollah-supplied pagers.

International law allows, to some extent, collateral damage during war (and Israel and Hezbollah are certainly at war). What percentage of collateral damage would you say is acceptable here? 50%? 20%? None?

Hezbollah are also terrorists. You might think it is ok to fight terror with terror, all I am trying to point out is that this is indeed a response in kind.

> Thousands were injured / wounded

Just as footnote, I think that mutilated is the correct word here. Having in mind that 2000 people lost fingers, or noses or a chunk of their hips.

Your terrorist group is their legitimate government. In Lebanon today their legitimate government was attacked by a terrorist group.

Hamas may be the “legitimate” government of Gaza (or at least the most recently elected one), but Hezbollah is not the legitimate government of Lebanon; it’s a minority party with outsized influence in parts of Lebanon due to its militia and intelligence services.

Mine was a semantic point rather than one picking sides. I don't have a dog in the race.

There is no comprehensive information yet on the ratio of civilians to militants maimed by this attack, and any claims otherwise are propaganda.

If an enemy had exploded small remote controlled bombs in American supermarkets and homes targeting members of the American political parties, the sponsors of terrorism and oppressive dictatorships in many foreign countries, there is no question we would characterize it as a terrorist attack.

Hezbollah has already claimed eight of the nine dead, while some of the injuries even happened in Syria where Hezbollah is fighting. Which leads me to believe otherwise, but do you have any other information?

In your metaphorical scenario in America does the following also hold for the said American political party:

* It has a parallel illegal army that is stronger than the US army

* It started a war attacking a neighbor using rockets, mainly attacking the enemy civilian population

* It is controlled by a foreign government

* Its attacked members are in active combat roles inside the united states

* It is part of the US government yet the government refuses to disarm it or take responsibility of its actions

Yes. If China detonated several thousand bombs in Idaho civilian locations on the premise they were targeting militias, some of whom fought in Syria and/or against Chinese oppression of the Uyghurs, this would absolutely be an act of mass terrorism.

It's the kid's fault for associating with terrorists.