well, I don't recall Hezbollah member blow themselves in civilian bus, there is only one allegation in Romania without any proof being presented.
now let talk statistics . Israel never advanced more than 20km inside Lebanon and in that war they managed to kill 200-300 Hezbollah member and 1200 civilian , Hezbollah managed to kill 120israel soldier and less than 60 civilian.
your only point in considering Hezbollah as terrorist is using unguided rocket , the question is which one is bigger terrorist the one who using guided missiles and bombs against civilian targets or the one whose unguided rockets mistakenly hit civilian areas .
if the war was only 20km inside Lebanon border why Israel bombing Lebanon infrastructure, hundreds of km away from war area is not considered an act of terrorism .
if Hezbollah was such terrorist group,why for 3 day they refrained attacking Israel cities and only warned Israel that stop attacking Lebanon cities otherwise they are retaliating .
and what was the military significant of Egyptian merchant ship that Israel destroyed in 2006 war was not that an act of terrorism .
today the word terrorist is just a meaningless tools at the hand of the owner of medias to rationalize their crime .
The suicide bomber was an example, and not pointing out Hezbollah.
Unguided rockets have bad precision, but still they are not fired at random.
They are fired at targets, and those targets are generally population centres
so it is easy to determine that it is a war crime.
When You fire a guided missile which lands on a civilian targets, then You have to
investigate if there is a military target present.
If there is, and the military value of destroying the military target is high compared
to the civilian losses, no war crime has been committed.
If there are good reasons to believe that a significant military target is present,
but in reality it is not, then it is a mistake, and not a war crime.
Only if it is known by the attacking side, that no military target is present, then it is a war crime.
You cannot draw a conclusion that just because civilians are killed, a war crime has bern committed
and even if one side has killed more civilians than the others, then that side is more criminal.
Each incident has to be investigated, before a conclusion.
The case of indiscriminate firing of rockets is just so much simpler to investigate than most others.
Note that "civilian" targets can lose their status easily, if they are used for military purposes.
A party which puts snipers in civilian buildings, should expect them to be destroyed.
If civilian appartment buildings are boobytrapped, and exploded as soon as the other side
enters, allows the other side to treat ALL appartment houses as military targets which can be blown
up in advance.
Infrastructure has dual use, so they are not purely civilian.
Still the destruction of Infrastructure must follow guidelines on proportionality.
(There are very few precedents where an official judgement has occured, though)
Wiki says:
"An Egyptian civilian merchant ship, the Moonlight,
[50] was hit by a Hezbollah rocket, caught in the cross-fire as Hezbollah was firing on the Israelis.
[51] The ship was registered in
Cambodia, but sailing under Egyptian flag, carrying several hundred tons of cement. The ship sank in minutes, but the Egyptian crew managed to board
lifeboats and was picked up by another civilian vessel. One crewman, however, was seriously injured.
[52]"
Not sure why You bring it up. Maybe You have a different explanation.
Finally, States can NEVER be terrorists according to most definitions,
simply because the acts are covered by International Law.
The question is if they are war criminals.
--------------get a life habibis
------time to go full throttle on these yazeedi bi***
-dont let us down----the day you fell, zombies will break all hell loose upon musalmans----- GODSPEED to my Shia Brethren
