It's not a matter of "operating from different principles", it's a
matter of facts. Among the killed were a 10-year-old girl and among
the wounded were Iran's ambassador to Lebanon. Mouthbreathers will say
"Iran bad so wounding ambassador good", but an ambassador is a
noncombatant, hence wounding them is prima facie evidence of an
indiscriminate attack.
> (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
> (b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
> (c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;
> and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
It is clear that whoever detonated these remote-controlled bombs had
no control over who they injured. Thus, the effects of combat couldn't
"be limited as required by international humanitarian law". Hence, the
attack was indiscriminate. If you don't trust my interpretation of the
IHL, read the ICRC's interpretation:
> But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations
> are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are
> uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military
> objectives and civilians or civilian objects without
> distinction. The US Air Force Pamphlet gives the example of
> biological weapons.[17] Even though biological weapons might be
> directed against military objectives, their very nature means that
> after being launched their effects escape from the control of the
> launcher and may strike both combatants and civilians and
> necessarily create a risk of excessive civilian casualties.
Moreover, there is the principle of proportionality. You claim
"deterrence" motivates the attack and the loss of civilian life. But
spreading fear is not a military objective in the first place, hence
it does not full-fill the principle of proportionality.
Moreover, I use the word "indiscriminate" because it has a specific meaning in IHL which you, apparently, is unaware of. Let me cite ICRC (https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12):
> Indiscriminate attacks are those:
> (a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;
> (b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
> (c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;
> and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
It is clear that whoever detonated these remote-controlled bombs had no control over who they injured. Thus, the effects of combat couldn't "be limited as required by international humanitarian law". Hence, the attack was indiscriminate. If you don't trust my interpretation of the IHL, read the ICRC's interpretation:
> But this reasoning begs the question as to what those limitations > are. Practice in this respect points to weapons whose effects are > uncontrollable in time and space and are likely to strike military > objectives and civilians or civilian objects without > distinction. The US Air Force Pamphlet gives the example of > biological weapons.[17] Even though biological weapons might be > directed against military objectives, their very nature means that > after being launched their effects escape from the control of the > launcher and may strike both combatants and civilians and > necessarily create a risk of excessive civilian casualties.
Moreover, there is the principle of proportionality. You claim "deterrence" motivates the attack and the loss of civilian life. But spreading fear is not a military objective in the first place, hence it does not full-fill the principle of proportionality.