This was a precision military attack against people using pagers that were MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CELL PHONES that were ordered by and passed out by Hezbollah to its members. These weren't being sold at corner stores. Civilians have CHEAPER cell phones.
IF the target is civilian infrastructure or if the intent is to cause fear, suffering, or destruction among the civilian population, this would more likely be considered an act of terrorism. Terrorism is often defined as violent acts aimed at civilians, intending to create fear or achieve political or ideological goals outside of legitimate warfare.
Key factors that determine whether it is an act of terrorism or warfare include:
Target: If the infrastructure is purely civilian (e.g., water treatment plants, hospitals, power grids for residential areas), it may be classified as terrorism.
Intent: If the intent is to cause psychological terror or indiscriminate harm to civilians, rather than a direct military advantage, this could be labeled as terrorism.
Proportionality: Under international law, attacks should not cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military gain. If the attack disregards this balance, it may also be considered a war crime or act of terrorism.
Well from the video I've seen 95%+ of the people in the hospital were military age males. Also ZERO buildings were destroyed. You couldn't get that type of precision with ANY other type of attack.
Sabotaging enemy equipment can be considered a legitimate military action, it only crosses the line into terrorism if civilians or non-military targets are deliberately attacked or if the goal is to create fear among the civilian population. International law seeks to distinguish between lawful acts of war and acts of terrorism based on the nature of the target and the intent behind the action.
OP is trying to redefine "terrorism"
This was a precision military attack against people using pagers that were MORE EXPENSIVE THAN CELL PHONES that were ordered by and passed out by Hezbollah to its members. These weren't being sold at corner stores. Civilians have CHEAPER cell phones.
IF the target is civilian infrastructure or if the intent is to cause fear, suffering, or destruction among the civilian population, this would more likely be considered an act of terrorism. Terrorism is often defined as violent acts aimed at civilians, intending to create fear or achieve political or ideological goals outside of legitimate warfare.
Key factors that determine whether it is an act of terrorism or warfare include:
Target: If the infrastructure is purely civilian (e.g., water treatment plants, hospitals, power grids for residential areas), it may be classified as terrorism.
Intent: If the intent is to cause psychological terror or indiscriminate harm to civilians, rather than a direct military advantage, this could be labeled as terrorism.
Proportionality: Under international law, attacks should not cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military gain. If the attack disregards this balance, it may also be considered a war crime or act of terrorism.
Well from the video I've seen 95%+ of the people in the hospital were military age males. Also ZERO buildings were destroyed. You couldn't get that type of precision with ANY other type of attack.
Sabotaging enemy equipment can be considered a legitimate military action, it only crosses the line into terrorism if civilians or non-military targets are deliberately attacked or if the goal is to create fear among the civilian population. International law seeks to distinguish between lawful acts of war and acts of terrorism based on the nature of the target and the intent behind the action.