The pager operation has been one of the most targeted ones in history for its size. The ratio of civilian by Hezbollah member casualties was very low compared to other military operations or a war.
So the perpetrators did not know they would actually hurt a lawful target, they just hoped it might.
Anyway, stop supporting the genocide dude.
A water source the entire population of an area relies upon is in no way the same as a specific, small organization's private means of communication that it distributed to its members.
Or are you under the impression Israel simply loaded a Lebanese RadioShack with explosive pagers and hoped Hezbollah would be the ones buying them? You could argue that it was not discriminate because there were pagers distributed to civilian Hezbollah members, who may not have been valid targets, but that is not the same argument.
Every bit of reporting on it tries heart-string tugging, just to quietly reveal one of the unintended targets picked up the pager to bring it to a Hezbollah member father, uncle, or brother.
The one distinction I can see you raise is about the spatial concentration of the affected persons, but I don't see how this essential to the point.
You are of course free to put your delineations such that the matter of concentration results in two different arguments, but frankly I think you should just reject the use of analogies altogether and save everyone else a lot of grief.
And the location of the target is entirely the point when the alternative to the pager attack is a JDAM, an attack with greater collateral damage, but still a valid target. Imagine instead of an explosive charge, these pagers were somehow phoning home and providing location data that Israel could use to perform airstrikes. Based on that intel, those air strikes would be entirely legitimate, and they would include far more collateral damage than the charge in the pager.
An attack on the water supply is indiscriminate. A water supply poisoning makes no attempt at differentiating between the targets and the civilian population.
Now can you be explicit about what you are implying? You are implying that I found the comment persuasive. If I chastised some absurd comment saying that the Holocaust didn't happened or that "Hitler was right", would you say that implies I actually think those things are true?
However, to clarify further I will say that your reply seems to indicate you confuse the property of being "persuasive" with the state of being "persuaded"
Btw, y’all called the old Mandela terrorist too. No one cares who you call terrorist.