Well let’s see, the FBI calls international terrorism “Violent, criminal acts committed by individuals and/or groups who are inspired by, or associated with, designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).” And I’d argue the pagers were state-sponsored, violent, and to my knowledge criminal since killing civilians is typically viewed as criminal.
But I really like how Wikipedia words it:
the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it. Different definitions of terrorism emphasize its randomness, its aim to instill fear, and its broader impact beyond its immediate victims.
Do I really need to spell out for you how using an IED to kill whoever happens to be near it when the detonator is pressed fits this definition? If so I’d like to see why you think Oct 7th was a terrorist attack.
Which military base did the pagers go off in? This is more like dropping bombs on a school or hospital because you think there are some military personnel inside. Oh wait, they do that too. I can’t believe Israel managed to get a bunch of idiots to defend IED’s.