• Peaty@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    63
    ·
    1 year ago

    Nation states commit acts of war not acts of terror. If you think about it any act you would call terrorism would also be causus belli.

    • blunderworld@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        27
        ·
        1 year 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year 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.

                • NoIWontPickaName@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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

    • Skates@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nation states

      Personally, I don’t recognize the 1948 decision to create this nation state out of thin air, displacing an already existing nation and illegally seizing their land. So I’m cool to keep talking about it as a terrorist organization, yeah? Okay, thanks.

      • steltek@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There was no existing nation. Pre-47, it was British territory and before that, it was seized from the Ottoman Empire after WW1.

        Simplistic statements about historical claims to territory will never work here. Nor will “keeping score” about whose team is getting revenge for what previous massacre and who’s killed the most children (what a fucking thing to have to spell out. holy shit.).

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The decision didn’t have gold fringe, so it isn’t real.