My point was why we call it collateral damage when a country bombed innocent ? Why not an act of terrorism? Adhey ganjey ..
The world will not change just because You are, mocking real terrorist victims, like You did with your reported comment on "tiny" terrorist attacks
@waz.
International Law is all about knowledge and intentions.
If a party has information that a target has a military value, it may be attacked.
Presence of civilians does not generally protect a target against an attack,
but a judgement whether civilian casualties are proportional to the military value of an attack.
As an example, if a sports arena is filled with 50,000 spectators, a single sniper hidden
amongst the spectators, it would not be proportional to carpet bomb the sports arena,
killing most of the spectators.
If it is known that there is a group of terrorists which are preparing a missile for a nuclear strike
on a city of millions, leveling the sports arena is legal.
If it is known that a target has no military value and it is attacked, then there is a war crime.
If it is believed that a target has a military value, but the information is wrong,
and civilians are killed, then it is a mistake, and not a war crime.
If it is known that a target has military value, and expected number of civilian casualties
are reasonable compared to the value of the military target, then the civilian casualties
are "collateral damage"
Combatants of a state that has signed the Geneva Convention does not commit
"Terrorist Acts" in a war. They either commit war crimes, or don't.
In war, the number of civilians killed is not enough information to determine
if a war crime as been committed.