BF2S Forums When does terrorism become ok?

If they fight for a reason like freedom its okey.

Krappyappy wrote:

FEOS wrote:

War is generally not waged on people...it is waged on capabilities of nation states. The capabilities that are targeted depend on the objective of the operation.

plenty of wars are waged against people. see westmoreland's strategy in vietnam, the iran-iraq war, the japanese invasion of china, etc etc. when the 'capabilities' of a nation is mainly its manpower, you can bet on the war being waged on people.

Go back and look at the actual objectives of those wars. The killing of people is secondary to the objectives trying to be met.

Krappyappy wrote:

FEOS wrote:

For example, a factory that makes munitions. It is a legal target. The people that work there are not. There is a distinction. You can attack the factory while they are there if it is the only way to achieve your objective. But proportionality has to be taken into account. Conversely, you cannot attack the workers at their homes in order to take out the factory.

i don't think anyone has ever followed this rule. the US certainly isn't above sending cruise missiles to people's homes to kill targets, families and neighbors be damned.

You would be wrong in your thinking. There are certainly some who overlook it, but it is applied to every single US (and allied) action in warfare.

Krappyappy wrote:

FEOS wrote:

The same criteria apply for random government workers. If not for the method of attack used, the attack on the Pentagon would've been legitimate. But the hijackers were essentially using human shields (the passengers on the plane)...which is a violation of multiple international conventions.

like my example above, if it were a bomb that happened to catch a bunch of random people in its blast, would it be any less of a terrorist attack?

Yes, it would be less of a terrorist attack.

Krappyappy wrote:

FEOS wrote:

As to your last point: yes, war is ugly. And at some levels, the differences become irrelevant to the individual(s) on the receiving end. But intent and targeting processes make all the difference from a legal/moral perspective. Granted, that doesn't lessen the horror of war at the tactical level...but it does differentiate legal actions from non-legal actions.

what is 'legal' is defined by the side that wins. let's pretend that al-qaeda manages to get the us to surrender. you can bet there would be war-crimes trials for all the civilian deaths caused by us bombs. but all of those are legal as long as the us is winning.

a moral imperative is completely different, it applies regardless of the winner in a conflict, assuming you prescribe to that system of morality.

What is "legal" is defined by existing international law and treaties. War crimes are international jurisdiction. In your example, AQ would have to not just win against the US, but against the entire world in order for them to enact that kind of nonsense.

m3thod wrote:

it becomes okay when they're on my side.

Allahu ackbar!

What is terrorism? 

Beduin wrote:

What is terrorism? 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism