The existing conventions do not prohibit attacking militants while they are in the middle of civilians, even if they are not doing that as part of some hostage/human shield operation. It may be considered morally not ok, but doing so does not violate any obligation.

That's not exactly true; it would depend on how you attacked the combatants, and how much collateral damage you caused. Civilian casualties must be proportionate to the military value of the target.

Reporting is still coming in on these attacks so virtually every comment on these huge long threads could end up falsified one way or the other, but from what I can tell, it looks like these attacks will not only clear that bar, but that they'll do so in a way unprecedented in the history of modern warfare. But we'll see!

We have video of these things going off. People that were mere inches away, but not literally holding the device in their hand or pocket, were unharmed. Despite thousands of pagers reportedly exploding there are less than a dozen deaths, meaning even for that group that kept them on their person, they just aren't that lethal.

That whole argument is kind of ridiculous in the face of the details. What possible mechanism of war do you propose that has less chance of collateral damage than what happened here?

Tell that to the seriously injured practicioners, children and civilians.

What military action do you propose that has zero chance of collateral damage whatsoever?

This is vastly better than the alternative of dropping even relatively small (250lb) bombs. This is vastly better than pretty much every alternative.

A kick in the balls isn't per se good compared to a full beat up.

>what military op

Try to cut funds to madrassas bound to terror and indoctrination.