• 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
        5
        ·
        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.

        • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            Yes the UN codes regarding war crimes.

            • stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year 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@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year 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@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

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

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

                    First you didn’t not include a definition. Second, dictionaries aren’t authoritative sources but rather descriptive ones. If you need that explained to you then you are ill equipped for any academic discussion.