He... Did not say that. He said they are targeting civilians, and basic math on casualty numbers ("hamas" numbers being the same as in use by both US and IDF military intelligence) can at least tell you they're doing very little to avoid it.
Iraq and Afghanistan had worse figures, by many reports even the drone part of GWOT was worse.
And those were generally fought in more permissive environments.
For the most part the single largest casualty cohort in any conflict are civilians achieving a 1:1 to 1:2 ratio depending on which figures you go by while tragic is actually quite impressive for a lack of a better word.
1. a goal in and of itself (ie. they want civilians dead)
2. being aware of the costs (ie. they only want hamas dead, but don't mind if some civilians are killed)
tuyguntn was strongly implying that it's #1, whereas HDThoreaun claims it's only #2.
No, I didn't, I only asked a question by replacing words Hezbollah with IDF, pager with building. When pagers got blown up, there were civilians near by
Recently we had what may have been a targeted hit in crowded public space in Alabama. When those individuals are caught, I hope it is understood that you don't choose to open fire in a crowd and only choose to shoot one person. You choose it all.
In such a world how do we make a decision? By judging that the price is right. Why did innocent people die when thousands of bombs blew up in public spaces? Because the price was right. That should be the center of discussion, not whether we'd like to blow up thousands of bombs in public places without paying the price.