Comment by stetrain

Comment by stetrain 2 days ago

3 replies

As far as I know in this case both sides have already attacked each other via bombs, airstrikes, rockets, etc. I'm not really making a judgement on whether this was ethical or justified.

There's just a distinction to be made from intentionally killing civilians for the purpose of causing terror versus targeting a group that you are in an open military hostility with. The second one, as you say, is basically just war. And war has historically also included civilian casualties.

Flying a plane full of civilians into a building full of civilians, or detonating a bomb in a public square full of civilians, are pretty clear examples of what "terrorism" is. They aren't actions meant to directly attack the capability of an enemy to wage war against you.

What governments and media choose to label "terrorism" or "terrorist groups" however is inherently political and not done following some agreed, objective definition.

yieldcrv 19 hours ago

Right, that is the (weak) counterpoint from that region

They’ve been at war for 50 years, like, officially the war declaration was never dropped.

So recent missile volleys can’t be treated in isolation, despite that making sense

gryzzly a day ago

the operation targets operatives of a terrorist organization, not civilians. they use it as secure communication over mobile phones to not be easily locatable. is that lost on you, that it’s targeting the communication used by combatants?

  • stetrain a day ago

    I haven’t said anything that disagrees with that. Might want to re-read my comment above in this thread.