It does nto weaken my point that you cannot prove yours.
Not acknowledging that you have failed to provide anything close to a legitimate argument is fine, that's your choice, but don't pretend you have given evidence of your hypothetical being a reality.
Originally I said "there IS never a justification". Not that one couldn't be invented, just that it does not exist. If you provide evidence that such a legitimate threat exists, that justifies blowing up a school, I will relent and admit error.
All I ask for is one real world example where a ground force is not a reasonable response instead of killing civilians. Only one example is all I require. If you cannto provide it, or refuse to do so, I'll accept that as you admitting that you created a straw-man argument by trying to apply my real world rationale to make-believe land.