Alot of focus has been on the Israelian attacks on Hisbollah covering amongs civilians. I find it hard to accept that an army knowingly kills civilians. But since their enemy is conducting that way they face this terrible dilemma. This is more aboud a sliding scale of morality than a question of right and wrong. I tried to make some extensions: One terrorist in a building with 1000 children - Don't think Israel would bomb that target. 1000 terrorists in a building with one child - That target I think would be bombed. So those desicisions are probably made every time and I hope the Israelian commanders have serious agony in making those descisions too. It will be their price to pay. Maybe they can get some relieve knowing that the truly evil acts wasn't theirs but rather the ones forcing them to rationalize over life and death of innocent children. BUT Israel claims to fight Hisbollah. They use their armed forces in an attempt to neutalize this enemy and finding it a bit hard. So they are "putting preasure" on the civilian population by laying the infrastructure in ruins in hope that the civilians will distance themselves from Hisbollah. Now this is terror. They are striking a secondary unarmed non-combatant group to achieve their goals. An act of terror warfare. I find it wrongful. I'd like to make a comparison to anther, recent war. USA wanted to ensure that Iraq didn't have WMD. We can stick to that pretext, other scenarios has been discussed elsewhere. USA openly challanged the nation of Iraq and subsequently declared war. In this war they have fought both regular army, guerilla and terrorists and still not resort to terrorising the civilian population. The devastation on infrastructure was a result of modern warfare and actually USA took steps not to destroy but to ensure a functioning society. I think it is a huge difference.