30 ms·

> Where is the line between war and terrorism ? Easy. When it is you or your allies committing an act, it is war and collateral damage. When it is someone else

> Where is the line between war and terrorism ? Easy. When it is you or your allies committing an act, it is war and collateral damage. When it is someone else, it is terrorism. It is often a difficult topic to discuss because both sides tend to be in the wrong. It ends up being asymmetrical warfare. The stronger side accuses the weaker of hiding behind civilians while the weaker side accuses the stronger of human rights violations. As sad as this case is, I find it pretty interesting since it is clearly an extrajudicial act of violence carried out in a foreign land. The west will likely celebrate this, but I personally find this much worse than the Indian assassination that took place in Canada "recently" and didn't have significant collateral damage, yet the west was up in arms about.

ada1981 2y ago
Exactly this >Easy. When it is you or your allies committing an act, it is war and collateral damage. When it is someone else, it is terrorism. < Terrorism is a statecraft term of art used as part of a propaganda campaign. Outside of that is a meaningless term.
funnybeam 2y ago
Terrorism is attacking civilian targets in order to create political pressure from fear. War is attacking military targets to reduce the enemy’s capability to wage war against you. Civilian target = terrorism Military target = war There absolutely are grey areas and overlap between the two but not nearly as much as people like to make out.
- harimau777 2y ago
  Overall I agree. However, the difficulty that I see is when someone attacks a, sometimes nominally, military target in a situation or method where it will unreasonably injure or kill civilians. Or even when the military target is mostly an excuse to target civilians. I think it can also get less clear when the target is an enemy's infrastructure, industry, or political infrastructure.
  - ilbeeper 2y ago
    If an army unreasonably kills or injure civilians it will most probably be considered a war crime. Committing war crime is not necessarily better than being a terrorist, but it's different.
- SenorKimchi 2y ago
  Is the target the relevant piece or is it actual impact? If you have a single military target who is known to use X brand phone, is it war to kill 5,000 people to get this one target? Is it not instilling terror on the people who use those devices? It is this rationalization that enables powers to bomb civilians and ethnic groups under the guise of targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics. And then the cycle only continues as each side adds fuel to the fire.
  - ilbeeper 2y ago
    > targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics This is flawed rational. If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you shouldn't fight it on the backs of civilians. Your inability to execute your wishes legitimately doesn't provide you with any right to act illegitimately and inflict the cost and pain on others.
    - beedeebeedee 2y ago
      > If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you should't fight it on the backs of civilians. That cuts both ways. Just like hamas should not hide amongst civilians, if Israel is too weak to go into Gaza to arrest hamas, it has no excuse to act illegitimately and bomb civilians.
      - ilbeeper 2y ago
        True, that's why Israel army is in Gaza right now fighting Hamas instead of burning down the entire strip.
        beedeebeedee 2y ago
        > instead of burning down the entire strip Their bombing campaign begs to differ
- lazide 2y ago
  Who decides what is a civilian vs military target? Fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo - terrorism, or war? Nighttime Bombing a factory that produces ball bearings - terrorism, or war?
- troyvit 2y ago
  I mostly agree with you, but I also agree with a parent comment that part of that gray area depends on who's side you're on. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings That was a Marine barracks that was part of a "military peacekeeping operation". Granted, 128 non-military Americans were injured, but all of the dead people were military. The U.S. politicians labelled it terrorism.
  - echoangle 2y ago
    Doesn’t matter for the point but the article says 6 civilians were killed, it doesn’t seem like all of the dead people were military.
    - troyvit 2y ago
      Oh thanks -- I only caught that there were injuries, not deaths. Thanks for catching that.
- underlipton 2y ago
  Fort Hood? >On November 5, 2009, a mass shooting took place at Fort Hood (now Fort Cavazos), near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] It was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base and the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the September 11 attacks until it was surpassed by the San Bernardino attack in 2015.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

ada1981 2y ago

Exactly this >Easy. When it is you or your allies committing an act, it is war and collateral damage. When it is someone else, it is terrorism. < Terrorism is a statecraft term of art used as part of a propaganda campaign. Outside of that is a meaningless term.

funnybeam 2y ago

Terrorism is attacking civilian targets in order to create political pressure from fear. War is attacking military targets to reduce the enemy’s capability to wage war against you. Civilian target = terrorism Military target = war There absolutely are grey areas and overlap between the two but not nearly as much as people like to make out.

harimau777 2y ago
Overall I agree. However, the difficulty that I see is when someone attacks a, sometimes nominally, military target in a situation or method where it will unreasonably injure or kill civilians. Or even when the military target is mostly an excuse to target civilians. I think it can also get less clear when the target is an enemy's infrastructure, industry, or political infrastructure.
- ilbeeper 2y ago
  If an army unreasonably kills or injure civilians it will most probably be considered a war crime. Committing war crime is not necessarily better than being a terrorist, but it's different.
SenorKimchi 2y ago
Is the target the relevant piece or is it actual impact? If you have a single military target who is known to use X brand phone, is it war to kill 5,000 people to get this one target? Is it not instilling terror on the people who use those devices? It is this rationalization that enables powers to bomb civilians and ethnic groups under the guise of targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics. And then the cycle only continues as each side adds fuel to the fire.
- ilbeeper 2y ago
  > targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics This is flawed rational. If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you shouldn't fight it on the backs of civilians. Your inability to execute your wishes legitimately doesn't provide you with any right to act illegitimately and inflict the cost and pain on others.
  - beedeebeedee 2y ago
    > If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you should't fight it on the backs of civilians. That cuts both ways. Just like hamas should not hide amongst civilians, if Israel is too weak to go into Gaza to arrest hamas, it has no excuse to act illegitimately and bomb civilians.
    - ilbeeper 2y ago
      True, that's why Israel army is in Gaza right now fighting Hamas instead of burning down the entire strip.
      - beedeebeedee 2y ago
        > instead of burning down the entire strip Their bombing campaign begs to differ
lazide 2y ago
Who decides what is a civilian vs military target? Fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo - terrorism, or war? Nighttime Bombing a factory that produces ball bearings - terrorism, or war?
troyvit 2y ago
I mostly agree with you, but I also agree with a parent comment that part of that gray area depends on who's side you're on. For instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings That was a Marine barracks that was part of a "military peacekeeping operation". Granted, 128 non-military Americans were injured, but all of the dead people were military. The U.S. politicians labelled it terrorism.
- echoangle 2y ago
  Doesn’t matter for the point but the article says 6 civilians were killed, it doesn’t seem like all of the dead people were military.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Oh thanks -- I only caught that there were injuries, not deaths. Thanks for catching that.
underlipton 2y ago
Fort Hood? >On November 5, 2009, a mass shooting took place at Fort Hood (now Fort Cavazos), near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] It was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base and the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the September 11 attacks until it was surpassed by the San Bernardino attack in 2015.[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting