A blast and gunfire were heard at the premises of the headquarters of Turkish Aerospace Industries. The Turkish interior minister called it a “terrorist attack,” adding that it caused deaths and injuries.
A blast and gunfire were heard at the premises of the headquarters of Turkish Aerospace Industries. The Turkish interior minister called it a “terrorist attack,” adding that it caused deaths and injuries.
Is it terrorism to attack military facilities and military contractors…?
This company manufactures drones and aerial platforms that are used to to kill Kurds, or at minimum, members of Kurdish militias.
If the Kurds had the capability to launch an aerial bombardment of their production facilities, we would recognize that as a legitimate military strike, of a legitimate target, but they don’t have those advanced capabilities.
If they followed executives home and murdered their families, okay, terrorism… But you can’t call this terrorism, while cheering on Ukrainian drones strikes on Russian industries, inside of Russia.
Its a very weird line.
Back in ww2 when the allies ran the bombing campaign of German cities the “justification” was that civilians were being used to manufacture arms for the armed forces therefore a part of the military logistics network, and in fairness yes they were - like the British were at the start.
On the other hand it is a deliberate attack on civilians who are not in uniform, not part of the armed forces and not combatants. You could quite easily follow this path to everyone who pays tax or trades with that country as supporting the war effort.
Going at it from a different direction, terrorism is defined as non state actor, using violence against civilians, for a political objective. Therefore terrorism.
Is it justified - probably not but neither is much of warfare. Proportional but didn’t minimize civilian casualties.
Is it terrorism - leaning towards yes.
The WWII allied strategic bombing campaigns are nothing close to what occurred here. The comparison is at best, ilconceived, but at worst, intentionally disingenuous.
This company manufactures weapons to sell to their government for a profit, which are then used to kill a particular ethnic group. That means it’s a part of their military industry, and as such is a legitimate target.
Terrorism does not require a non-state actor, I don’t where you got that definition from. Terrorism is any attack that is strictly against civilian non-combatants, for the express purpose of achieving a ideological or political objective. This was an attack on a military contractor who is actively profiting and engaged in this specific conflict.
A very lopsided conflict that Turkey has been engaged in for decades, so for Turkey to cry foul about this, and decry it as terrorism, is particularly loathsome.