[funnybeam]

Terrorism is attacking civilian targets in order to create political pressure from fear.

War is attacking military targets to reduce the enemy’s capability to wage war against you.

Civilian target = terrorism

Military target = war

There absolutely are grey areas and overlap between the two but not nearly as much as people like to make out.

[SenorKimchi]

Is the target the relevant piece or is it actual impact? If you have a single military target who is known to use X brand phone, is it war to kill 5,000 people to get this one target? Is it not instilling terror on the people who use those devices?

It is this rationalization that enables powers to bomb civilians and ethnic groups under the guise of targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics. And then the cycle only continues as each side adds fuel to the fire.

[belorn]

The actually impact of every war since (a very long time) are that more civilians are killed and harmed than military personal. Looking at the statistics produced by the US military on the iraq war, civilian deaths was 3x of enemy combatants. UN has estimated that globally, modern wars has an 10:1 ration of civilian deaths to military combatants.

Looking at it from that perspective there is no line between war and terrorism. All wars are terrorism.

[ilbeeper]

> targeting military targets who stand no chance if they segregate themselves from the populace due to the power dynamics

This is flawed rational. If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you shouldn't fight it on the backs of civilians. Your inability to execute your wishes legitimately doesn't provide you with any right to act illegitimately and inflict the cost and pain on others.

[beedeebeedee]

> If you can't find any parking lot you keep driving, it doesn't allow you to double park and block someone else's car. If you are too weak to maintain your posture at war you should't fight it on the backs of civilians.

That cuts both ways. Just like hamas should not hide amongst civilians, if Israel is too weak to go into Gaza to arrest hamas, it has no excuse to act illegitimately and bomb civilians.

[ilbeeper]

True, that's why Israel army is in Gaza right now fighting Hamas instead of burning down the entire strip.

[beedeebeedee]

> instead of burning down the entire strip

Their bombing campaign begs to differ

[peterashford]

Have you seen the rubble that was Gaza?

[ilbeeper]

It's terrible, heart breaking. But that's the outcome of very slow army attacks, with evacuations, humanitarian aid and efforts to minimize civilians casualties, not maximizing it.

The army could have burn down the entire strip from the air and leave no person or stone there, in five minutes. That's what I meant by burning down the entire strip. If Hamas had the power to do the same to Israel they would gladly do so, as is evident from the way they use their power and resources.

Saying that it's 'cutting both ways' is evil statement. One side gladly ignores the lives and suffering of it's own people, while the other pay with the lives of soldiers in an effort to minimize the death toll of the same people.

[beltsazar]

But if they hide amongst civilians and Israel is too weak, what do you suggest Israel should do instead?

[beedeebeedee]

Try a different approach than engaging in war/apartheid. The practice of the IDF "mowing the grass" by harming civilians has been long established and commented on. Certain Israeli politicians also empowered Hamas, in order to divide and discredit the Palestinians, so that they would not be in a suitable position to negotiate an end to the conflict. Practices like that do not produce peace. I suggest Israel do its best to look at its role in this conflict (and not just Hamas's) and then act in good faith to bring about peace, so that there are no more terrorist attacks like Oct. 7.

[beltsazar]

Oct 7 happened and you're suggesting a different approach than a war, i.e. diplomatic solutions? That's too naive—not even the most pacifist country would do that.

And let's not pretend that no diplomatic solutions have been proposed, all of which were rejected. They will only accept it if they own every inch of the land and Israel is obliterated (their own word).

[troyvit]

I mostly agree with you, but I also agree with a parent comment that part of that gray area depends on who's side you're on. For instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings

That was a Marine barracks that was part of a "military peacekeeping operation". Granted, 128 non-military Americans were injured, but all of the dead people were military. The U.S. politicians labelled it terrorism.

[echoangle]

Doesn’t matter for the point but the article says 6 civilians were killed, it doesn’t seem like all of the dead people were military.

[troyvit]

Oh thanks -- I only caught that there were injuries, not deaths. Thanks for catching that.

[underlipton]

Fort Hood?

>On November 5, 2009, a mass shooting took place at Fort Hood (now Fort Cavazos), near Killeen, Texas.[1] Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army major and psychiatrist, fatally shot 13 people and injured more than 30 others.[2][3] It was the deadliest mass shooting on an American military base and the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since the September 11 attacks until it was surpassed by the San Bernardino attack in 2015.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Fort_Hood_shooting

[lazide]

Who decides what is a civilian vs military target?

Fire bombing Dresden or Tokyo - terrorism, or war?

Nighttime Bombing a factory that produces ball bearings - terrorism, or war?

[harimau777]

Overall I agree. However, the difficulty that I see is when someone attacks a, sometimes nominally, military target in a situation or method where it will unreasonably injure or kill civilians. Or even when the military target is mostly an excuse to target civilians.

I think it can also get less clear when the target is an enemy's infrastructure, industry, or political infrastructure.

[ilbeeper]

If an army unreasonably kills or injure civilians it will most probably be considered a war crime. Committing war crime is not necessarily better than being a terrorist, but it's different.