• Peaty
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    69
    ·
    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
      59
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any violence knowingly committed against civilians by a nation state should be considered an act of terrorism.

      • Peaty
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        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
          21
          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
            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
                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

              • Peaty
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Except they are. Terrorists are non-state organizations.

                • 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

                  • Peaty
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    No we were an invading army

    • Skates@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      16
      ·
      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.

      • Guydht@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t recognize it? There are 9 million people living in it, and worldwide recognition. Also the 48 decision was UN backed, meaning the nations of the world think otherwise. Jeez, you can not like someone while still admitting their existence.

        • Skates@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why do you equate Jewish people with Israel? That’s a zionist stance, not a Jewish stance. Of course Jewish people exist - but let’s not be arrogant enough to define a group of people by their one common characteristic and lump them all in together into one state, yeah?

          I have no issues with Jewish people. At least not with those living outside Israel - those who moved there willingly did so at the expense of their own morals (provided they already had a good home somewhere else), as they knew they are displacing an existing culture. I do have some issues with:

          1. The creation of Israel, done by lobbying the correct people with the correct incentives (the promise of keeping Muslims in the region at bay, and of being a trade partner for the backers), without any claim on the land - you know, as opposed to the people actually fucking living there at the time

          2. Rich people exploiting the situation of Palestine pre-1948 to get richer. Also post-1948, let’s not act like selling arms to the Israeli slaughterhouse to continue their genocide on Muslims isn’t profitable for some immoral fucks.

          3. The ethnic cleansing that’s been going on in Palestine over the last 70 years

          4. Governments of the world pretending human lives don’t matter and that regions of land don’t belong to the people inhabiting them (and who have done so for generations).

          5. Appealing to those governments to form your opinion. The UN doesn’t recognize Taiwan. Wanna stroke their dicks for it, or can we agree some massive conglomerate of rich and powerful old cunts that trade in blood don’t really constitute a proper standard of morality?

          6. Establishing a state based on a religion. I like the division of church and state, I think it’s a good thing.

          And so many others that I don’t have the energy to type, as this is really not a black and white subject, but it’s for sure not as gray as it’s being painted. It’s just another government installed in a region by external influences with superior firepower, with no rhyme or reason other than making money, like so many others in the world.

          At the end of the day, this is my own opinion and the world as a whole doesn’t seem to agree - especially since the people in charge don’t really care if others agree or not, and since it’s not a hot topic or something that impacts us daily, there will never be the type of mass protests necessary to stop funding this terrorist organization. And I’ll probably die with this opinion, and nothing will change. In the meanwhile, what the fuck is your excuse for buying into the propaganda and supporting the 70 years of slaughter of a group of people?

          • Guydht@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Firstly, where did I mention jews? Israel have non-jews in it. But it’s a valid point, Israel is a jewish point - a home for the jews after the Holocaust - which 100% needed to happen since they’re persecuted all over the world. Even if you have no problem with jews, muslim states and nazis do.

            Secondly, you shift all the blame of the situation on Israel, while they do have lots to blame for, so does the Palestinian leadership. They’re the ones teaching hate speech in schools, promoting violence against civilians, and not looking for a peaceful resolution benefitting their people.

            Thirdly, yes Israel likes being jewish and is working hard to keep being jewish, but that’s their whole shtick. Does anybody blame Jordan or Egypt for being muslim by law? I certainly don’t hear them as much as Israeli protestors. Which again further solidifies the need for a jewish state - there isn’t a safe place for jews in this world but that state. Wanting to take that away is just wrong.

            Also, I’d like you to keep in mind a simple point. How would arabs live under Israeli law (you can see examples in Israel right now - they have human rights) vs. how would jews live under Palestinian law (hint: they won’t). Yes, it’s wrong keeping gaza and the west bank under military power, but tbh what else can Israel do when suicide bombers arrive every day (and get praised heavily for it). The only solution is 2 states. Now after what Hamas did, I super doubt it is an option, and probably a total occupation of the land is eminent. Extremism brings extremism, and what Hamas did will make everything worse. That attack worsened the status quo, in the worst possible direction.

      • GBU_28@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • 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.).