• @blunderworld@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    579 months ago

    Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.

    • @Peaty@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -189 months ago

      That is also an act of war. National militaries don’t commit acts of terrorism. They commit crimes against humanity, war crimes, or the justification of war aka causus belli.

      • stevedidWHAT
        link
        fedilink
        English
        189 months ago

        You missed the key word there which was should be.

        Attacking a hospital is outright terrorism imo and has no place in war. Attack a supply depot or some other strategic point but a fucking hospital? A place dedicated to treating any human being regardless of politics, status, etc. blown up.

        Dogs. The lot of them. May the toll of the war bell ring loudest and the longest among them and each of their supporters.

        • @Peaty@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -29 months ago

          No I didn’t miss it. These words mean things already. Terrorism is something non-state entities engage in. When nations do it they are called acts of war.

          If a bunch of American burn down a bar in Canada that would be terrorism. If the US army did the same thing it would be a legal justification for Canada to declare war. That’s because militaries are acting on behalf of the country while random citizens are not.

          There’s no reason for this to change unless you hold to the idea that somehow terrorism is worse than acts of war or war crimes which is pretty childish and ignorant.

          • stevedidWHAT
            link
            fedilink
            English
            49 months ago

            Okay so you’re arguing pedantics. Let’s do it.

            Can you find any official global sources that define terrorism vs an act of war?

            I couldn’t but I only checked for a short while.

            • @Peaty@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -39 months ago

              What does arguing pedantics mean? Note pedantics isn’t a word.

              Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.

              • stevedidWHAT
                link
                fedilink
                English
                29 months ago

                Arguing pedantics = conversational way of saying that you are being pedantic.

                Define terrorism not war crimes, obviously. Nobody was arguing for the definition of war crimes, and just because something isn’t a formal war crime, doesn’t mean it’s not something else (which would possibly include but not limit to only terrorism)

              • NoIWontPickaName
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                You know what they meant.

                You are still being pedantic arguing about semantics.

                If you have to obscure your animus behind a veil of linguistics then you don’t actually have one.

                Is that a big enough vocab for you

          • NoIWontPickaName
            link
            fedilink
            29 months ago

            It is still an example of terrorism, it is also a good Cassus Belli.

            The two are not mutually exclusive.

              • NoIWontPickaName
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                A terrorist is someone who uses terror to enact change.

                By all rights we were terrorists when we went into iraq and Afghanistan.

                We went in and used fear and terror of us reaction to change things

                  • NoIWontPickaName
                    link
                    fedilink
                    19 months ago

                    Okay, well since you like being pedantic and hiding behind semantics here is the Oxford definition.

                    You can spend all day yelling at them.

                    I have called you out on your what i will assume is misinformation instead of disinformation.

                    It’s your move, do you argue against the factual definition?