3 ms·
> terrorist attack A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitio
by MichaelCollins 4y ago
> terrorist attack
A targeted attack against a strategic resource, during a war, with no [direct] civilian casualties. This doesn't meet the common definitions of terrorism. This is equivalent to bombing train yards, not city centers. The best argument for it being terrorism is the civilians who may freeze to death this winter, but even that is dubious.
- readonthegoapp 4y agoi would argue, if any party, group, organization, state intentionally blows up civilian infrastructure, it is either a terrorist attack and/or a war crime. if it is by a state, then it could be considered 'aggression' -- the 'supreme international crime'. as for the no direct / immediate civilian casualties part ("dubious") -- we can think of myriad examples of terror attacks and war crimes where the vast majority of civilians dying as a result of said attacks came later, even from 'indirect' causes -- dresden, hiroshima, nagasaki, al-shifa, etc. but whether you decide to classify it as a terror attack, terrorism, war crime, or something better or worse, i think we should be consistent, regardless of who the perpetrator(s) is/are.
- orwin 4y agoMy quick definition of terrorism is (loose translation): systematic violence for political gain. A terrorist attack is an attack perpetrated in a terrorist campaign. I don't think this really qualify, but i guess i could see why. It could be a war crime though.
- yencabulator 4y agoDestroying "civilian" airports, bridges, ports, transformers, water towers etc infrastructure is sort of standard practice in war though -- I doubt the states actually waging war are willing to consider those war crimes.
- readonthegoapp 4y agoRussia is at war with Ukraine. so Ukraine did it?