4 ms·
That's a reasonable thing to exclude. But I'd argue we should just write the definition to caveat out of uniformed fighters fighting in war zones directly. The
by throwaway729 10y ago
That's a reasonable thing to exclude. But I'd argue we should just write the definition to caveat out of uniformed fighters fighting in war zones directly.
The reason is that stealth is necessary for planning a terrorist attack (and therefore redundant -- any violent attack on a civilian target is going to be stealthily planned almost by definition), and also not a pre-requisite in the after-math of a terrorist attack. In fact, most terrorist organizations brag about their attacks pretty openly. Even in some cases when they weren't actually responsible.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoAs I understand it, the distinction goes back to the Geneva convention and similar rules of "just war" that aim to minimize harm to civilians. Specifically, if you openly declare war, wear uniforms, carry weapons openly and follow other rules of war, your opponents can blow you up while leaving civilians alone (and you can do the same to them). Then you've just got a regular war going on.