9 ms·

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

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
      - peterashford 2y ago
        Have you seen the rubble that was Gaza?
        ilbeeper 2y ago
        It's terrible, heart breaking. But that's the outcome of very slow army attacks, with evacuations, humanitarian aid and efforts to minimize civilians casualties, not maximizing it. The army could have burn down the entire strip from the air and leave no person or stone there, in five minutes. That's what I meant by burning down the entire strip. If Hamas had the power to do the same to Israel they would gladly do so, as is evident from the way they use their power and resources. Saying that it's 'cutting both ways' is evil statement. One side gladly ignores the lives and suffering of it's own people, while the other pay with the lives of soldiers in an effort to minimize the death toll of the same people.
        2y ago
- belorn 2y ago
  The actually impact of every war since (a very long time) are that more civilians are killed and harmed than military personal. Looking at the statistics produced by the US military on the iraq war, civilian deaths was 3x of enemy combatants. UN has estimated that globally, modern wars has an 10:1 ration of civilian deaths to military combatants. Looking at it from that perspective there is no line between war and terrorism. All wars are terrorism.
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

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
    - peterashford 2y ago
      Have you seen the rubble that was Gaza?
      - ilbeeper 2y ago
        It's terrible, heart breaking. But that's the outcome of very slow army attacks, with evacuations, humanitarian aid and efforts to minimize civilians casualties, not maximizing it. The army could have burn down the entire strip from the air and leave no person or stone there, in five minutes. That's what I meant by burning down the entire strip. If Hamas had the power to do the same to Israel they would gladly do so, as is evident from the way they use their power and resources. Saying that it's 'cutting both ways' is evil statement. One side gladly ignores the lives and suffering of it's own people, while the other pay with the lives of soldiers in an effort to minimize the death toll of the same people.
        2y ago
belorn 2y ago
The actually impact of every war since (a very long time) are that more civilians are killed and harmed than military personal. Looking at the statistics produced by the US military on the iraq war, civilian deaths was 3x of enemy combatants. UN has estimated that globally, modern wars has an 10:1 ration of civilian deaths to military combatants. Looking at it from that perspective there is no line between war and terrorism. All wars are terrorism.

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