3 ms·

Perhaps war is a form of terrorism.

by fwip 6y ago

klipt 6y ago
One difference is war has rules, terrorism doesn't. Deliberately targeting civilians in war is usually considered a war crime, while deliberately targeting civilians in a terrorist attack is considered ... a standard terrorist attack.
- vageli 6y ago
  > One difference is war has rules, terrorism doesn't. Citation needed? Unless every party to a war ever signed the Geneva Convention or something (and even then, war crimes exist which are arguably acts of terrorism). See: the use of agent orange, the bombing of Dresden, etc.
  - cinquemb 6y ago
    Lol yeah, Total warfare[0] has no rules: "A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
- vkou 6y ago
  What about terrorists that primarily target a government, or various government institutions? Note that nearly every government organization[1] is generally considered a perfectly acceptable target in a war. It should also be noted that government offices tend to be full of civilians. What about factories producing war materials? They are also staffed by civilians. Factories producing materials that are used by factories that produce war materials? The list goes on. The rules of war are not all that confining, and largely go out the window when one side starts losing. [1] With a few exceptions.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  War has rules? Until it doesn’t. Look at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was concluded by an agreement for a total withdrawal of PLO forces from Lebanon with promises by the Israelis not to attack Palestinians. This was negotiated through US mediators. So what did the Israelis do? They lit the sky for their proxy forces to roam the newly defenseless refugee camps and carry out their killings [1]. In the end, I wonder which has destroyed more human lives? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre
bigbubba 6y ago
There is truth to this, particularly the sorts of war that target civilian populations to demoralize the enemy. Another term for 'strategic bombing' is 'terror bombing'. > One of the strategies of war is to demoralize the enemy so that peace or surrender becomes preferable to continuing the conflict. Strategic bombing has been used to this end. The phrase "terror bombing" entered the English lexicon towards the end of World War II and many strategic bombing campaigns and individual raids have been described as terror bombing by commentators and historians. Because the term has pejorative connotations, some, including the Allies of World War II, have preferred to use euphemisms such as "will to resist" and "morale bombings".[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing
6nf 6y ago
You could define it like that but why?

Perhaps war is a form of terrorism.

by fwip 6y ago

Perhaps war is a form of terrorism.

One difference is war has rules, terrorism doesn't. Deliberately targeting civilians in war is usually considered a war crime, while deliberately targeting civilians in a terrorist attack is considered ... a standard terrorist attack.

vageli 6y ago
> One difference is war has rules, terrorism doesn't. Citation needed? Unless every party to a war ever signed the Geneva Convention or something (and even then, war crimes exist which are arguably acts of terrorism). See: the use of agent orange, the bombing of Dresden, etc.
- cinquemb 6y ago
  Lol yeah, Total warfare[0] has no rules: "A war that is unrestricted in terms of the weapons used, the territory or combatants involved, or the objectives pursued, especially one in which the laws of war are disregarded." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
vkou 6y ago
What about terrorists that primarily target a government, or various government institutions? Note that nearly every government organization[1] is generally considered a perfectly acceptable target in a war. It should also be noted that government offices tend to be full of civilians. What about factories producing war materials? They are also staffed by civilians. Factories producing materials that are used by factories that produce war materials? The list goes on. The rules of war are not all that confining, and largely go out the window when one side starts losing. [1] With a few exceptions.
DSingularity 6y ago
War has rules? Until it doesn’t. Look at the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It was concluded by an agreement for a total withdrawal of PLO forces from Lebanon with promises by the Israelis not to attack Palestinians. This was negotiated through US mediators. So what did the Israelis do? They lit the sky for their proxy forces to roam the newly defenseless refugee camps and carry out their killings [1]. In the end, I wonder which has destroyed more human lives? [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_and_Shatila_massacre

bigbubba 6y ago

There is truth to this, particularly the sorts of war that target civilian populations to demoralize the enemy. Another term for 'strategic bombing' is 'terror bombing'. > One of the strategies of war is to demoralize the enemy so that peace or surrender becomes preferable to continuing the conflict. Strategic bombing has been used to this end. The phrase "terror bombing" entered the English lexicon towards the end of World War II and many strategic bombing campaigns and individual raids have been described as terror bombing by commentators and historians. Because the term has pejorative connotations, some, including the Allies of World War II, have preferred to use euphemisms such as "will to resist" and "morale bombings".[1][2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing

6nf 6y ago

You could define it like that but why?