[maeil]

What is the point of this experiment? Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals?

I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK". Could you explain directly what your PoV is instead? If it is that "It's OK if Ukrainians take such actions against Russian generals, but not if Tuvaluans/___ take them against oil executives", then why?

[cyberax]

> What is the point of this experiment?

To see if your methods will actually result in anything good.

> Is it OK to propose for Ukrainians to sabotage the lives of Russian generals?

Of course. Top military personnel are a valid target in a war.

> I'm trying to apply good faith, in which case I'm going to assume you're not arguing that there has never existed a set of circumstances under which such actions would be "OK".

Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.

Violence is defensible only as a response to violence.

[maeil]

If I turn up with a bulldozer and destroy your house, is that violence?

How about if I flood your entire state/region permanently, both destroying your living, as well as that of your friends and families, as well as forcing you to relocate to a region you have nothing in common with?

Someone throwing a punch in your face is violence. Is that more acceptable to counter with violence than the previous scenario? I haven't met a single person who genuinely believes that.

"violence" can express itself in many ways.

> Pretty much. If you have to resort to terrorism, then your goal is probably indefensible.

Terrorism is a meaningless tern used to appeal to emotion. One's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Nearly every colonizer was overthrown by such a group. In many places, slavery was overturned by such groups.