[TwentyPosts]

Apart from the issue where this ignores how many people got injured (a much larger number), there's a very simple "survival bias" reason (ironically) why this argument doesn't work.

Children (and potentially health workers, as opposed to men of fighting age) are much more likely to die of such an explosion than men of fighting age. In other words, children will be significantly overrepresented here.

[tga_d]

To just back up for a moment, your argument is that an attack that turned enemy combatants into unwitting suicide bombers in civilian areas with children doesn't qualify as terrorism, because children are easy to kill?

Would you hold this opinion if it was an operation by Taliban fighters on US soldiers at home on leave?

[shprd]

Sorry to burst you theory:

1. Hezbollah only mourned 10 out of the 26 killed so far, claiming them as members (one of them being a medic). So the 50% seems to still hold, even leaving some room for malice and mistakes.

2. Most of the explosion incidents and injuries are coming from residential areas in Beirut so statistically the percentage of civilians injured as "collateral damage" is likely high considering many of those carrying these devices were going about their life, either with family or in public places at the time.

[jhanschoo]

My opinion of Israel inclines me to distrust reporting based on its claims, and believe your statements. But I still would require a source for these claims, if you would kindly provide them.