Now, let's say that in the context of the aforementioned skirmish, the aggrieved nation retaliated against this terrorist group by taking disproportionate measures, such as destroying the recently rebuilt infrastructure of the entire country, inflicting a roughly 12:1 civilian casualty rate, turning a quarter of the country's population into internal refugees, and dropping scores of cluster bombs, leaving countless unexploded bomblets to indiscriminately ravage further unsuspecting civilians. Still with me?
Now, let's say that in addition to the disproportionate level of retaliation and targeting of civilians and infrastructure, and the morally egregious cluster bombs, it turns out this nation also used enriched uranium and phosphorus bombs.
If Iran or North Korea had done such things to their neighbors, considering the level and concentration of the provocation, we'd be twisting arms at the UN to commence bombing at once, and rightly so.
I have no illusions whatsoever about who the good guys and bad guys are here, but the fact of the matter is that the response was disproportionate and inhumane based on what was known at the time, and now looks to be even worse than previously assumed. This is despicable, but not surprising, least of all to the provocateurs themselves, who deserve a certain amount of blame for expecting the response they got, and putting the civilian population in danger with sheer disregard anyway.
Still. Spontaneously combusting infant corpses. Radioactive pollution with genuinely unforeseeable consequences. Munitions which essentially function as above-ground mines, to rend and shred the innocent who stumble upon them. Is this victory, much less a moral one?