Really? I thought part of the purpose of dropping large bombs in civilian populations was to remind the civvies that they shouldn't support 'terrorists.' Conversely, the purpose of exploding large human/car bombs in civilian populations was to try and convince civvies that they shouldn't support the government's policies vis a vis the 'occupation' of Lebanon/Palestine.
Were was that moral equivalence argument again? Oh yeah...back that a ways.
And laws of war are applicable between two states, not between a state and a non-state actor. Unfortunately, we enter into a whole world of legal fuzziness when combat like this occurs. What is, or is not, permissible within the rules when one side tosses the rules out the window by not even being within the conventions describing the major actors? They aren't like a militia or combat irregulars, because they aren't that organized.
The best description I've read is
fourth generation warfare, wherein the application of military force must be extremely judicious, as the 'enemy' invariably will use overzealousness in said action as a propaganda point, increasing sympathy/support internally and/or externally.
I ask the question again: which side 'won' this little bout of assininity?