Is it right to ever support Terrorism?

[Lord Woodlouse]

And what is the general ethics principle in play, for fuck's sake? Do you have some kind of goddamned reading comprehension problem?

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking, Mike. Do you mean an ethical principle as a matter of some kind of idealogical basis, or are you talking about just a simple matter of the justification of why one of my judgements is more or less ethical than the other?

If the former this page makes mention of my following a Kantian philosophy.

Legally, a distinction is drawn between killing civilians as an unintended consequence of military action and deliberate killing of civilians. This is important as an expression of respect for persons. From a Kantian perspective, the acts of Palestinian or Christian guerrillas who deliberately kill nursery school children are especially repugnant, even though the utilitarian could point out that Israeli bombers or American warships may actually kill many more children without requiring the pilots or sailors to intend to do so.

If the latter I go into that next and can say the only reason I did not make it implicit earlier is because I considered it fairly fundamentally basic.

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, WHY?

Why is the destruction of a "military target" a more ethically acceptable reason to kill the same number of people as the achievement of a political goal, which (after all) is the overall reason for wars in the first place?

War is about incapacitating a nation's ability to strike you (be that so you can take their land or to stop them from taking yours) a military target is a far more pertinent threat. Terrorism is killing to make a point, a military target is self defence on at least some level. It depends on the target though, as I say, it's all very situation permitting and quite dependant on the potential threat of the military target itself and the number of civilians killed.

Can I put a value on those lives? I'm honestly not sure. Consequences can certainly play a part. Let us say a missile base that's in a civilian neighbourhood. Striking it costs 1000 civilian lives, but the missile has the potential to cost 10,000 of your own, say. That's reasonably easy to figure out with some simple math. But most situations are not going to be as easy to evaluate. Even the missile itself, one could argue would not harm any civilians at all and strike a military base of your own. In which case we go back to the old Geneva aspect of mutual responsibility. The people building the military base are the unethical ones for placing a missile base in a civilian zone. Self defence dictates that the missile base HAS to be a target.

With terrorists, however, self defence is never an issue. They don't blow up 50 civilians because, otherwise, they'd lose 50, 100 or 1000 of their own civilians. That's why one target is fundamentally less ethical than the other.

False analogy. "Collateral damage" is not an accident. They know beforehand that civilians will die, so it is every bit as intentional as any other kind of murder. It's like an arsonist saying that he only intended to burn down the home and not kill the people inside. That won't fly before a jury, and neither would this in a just world.

Besides, how the fuck do you judge that the "intent" of destroying military targets and civilians in order to achieve political goals is ethically superior to the "intent" of destroying civilians in order to achieve political goals?

Fair enough. But analogy aside the point is still pretty valid, I think, for the reasons I highlight above.

Ultimately, all military tactics are intended to achieve political objectives, and collateral damage is just as "intentional" as direct targeting.

As I say (and I don't want to make it look like I'm intentionally repeating myself here, I was at fault for not going into more detail from the start, for which I can only apologise) I think military targets are more about self defence, on some level. Rarely will it be done just to make a political gesture (though, naturally, this is possible. In which case the tactics become comparable to those of terrorists).

As for the intent of getting collateral damage I'd say the ethics of it come down to how avoidable they are.

[Lord Woodlouse]

I would argue that Dresden was terrorism. The explicit aim of the British bombing in the second world war was to demoralise the German people. I can't see it being anything other than terrorism.

Depends on who's story you hear. I've heard military justifications for the bombing before. Which, to get to the issue at hand, does not make the action ethical.

Dresden is a city. Its not, therefore, a military target. I can't say I'm having difficulty with this concept.

It had targets which are said to have been of military significance within it, however. The argument is that military infrastructure was disrupted (which I think was proven to be neglible).

As I say, I don't necisarily subscribe to the argument. I'm just saying it's there.

[Darth Wong]

I'm honestly not sure what you're asking, Mike. Do you mean an ethical principle as a matter of some kind of idealogical basis, or are you talking about just a simple matter of the justification of why one of my judgements is more or less ethical than the other?

I mean that in general, you should state that (for example) the overall ethics principle is overall reduction of casualties, in which case the utilitarian "kill 10 people in order to save 1000" logic comes into effect. But that has nothing to do with your intent-based argument in which you pretend that killing the same number of people can have different moralities depending on whether there are military objectives rather than political ones which are served by this behaviour (even though military objectives themselves are only means to a political end).

So what is your guiding principle? It's not overall number of lives, so what is it?

If the former this page makes mention of my following a Kantian philosophy.

Legally, a distinction is drawn between killing civilians as an unintended consequence of military action and deliberate killing of civilians. This is important as an expression of respect for persons. From a Kantian perspective, the acts of Palestinian or Christian guerrillas who deliberately kill nursery school children are especially repugnant, even though the utilitarian could point out that Israeli bombers or American warships may actually kill many more children without requiring the pilots or sailors to intend to do so.

If the latter I go into that next and can say the only reason I did not make it implicit earlier is because I considered it fairly fundamentally basic.

In other words, your position is based on a lie. Collateral damages are a known consequence of an action beforehand, so they are not "unintended".

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME, WHY?

Why is the destruction of a "military target" a more ethically acceptable reason to kill the same number of people as the achievement of a political goal, which (after all) is the overall reason for wars in the first place?

War is about incapacitating a nation's ability to strike you (be that so you can take their land or to stop them from taking yours) a military target is a far more pertinent threat. Terrorism is killing to make a point, a military target is self defence on at least some level. It depends on the target though, as I say, it's all very situation permitting and quite dependant on the potential threat of the military target itself and the number of civilians killed.

Wrong. War is about achieving political objectives, whether they be independence from an undesired ruler (as is the case with wars of secession), acquisition of territory, or the installation of rulers in other countries who are politically aligned with your interests (as is the case with most US military actions for the past half-century). Terrorism is also about achieving political objectives. The end motivation is identical.

Can I put a value on those lives? I'm honestly not sure. Consequences can certainly play a part. Let us say a missile base that's in a civilian neighbourhood. Striking it costs 1000 civilian lives, but the missile has the potential to cost 10,000 of your own, say. That's reasonably easy to figure out with some simple math. But most situations are not going to be as easy to evaluate. Even the missile itself, one could argue would not harm any civilians at all and strike a military base of your own. In which case we go back to the old Geneva aspect of mutual responsibility. The people building the military base are the unethical ones for placing a missile base in a civilian zone. Self defence dictates that the missile base HAS to be a target.

What is this "unethical ones" shit? Are you seriously assuming that only one of the two parties can be unethical? If you can show that party A is "the unethical ones", then party B is automatically exonerated via logical fallacy?

With terrorists, however, self defence is never an issue. They don't blow up 50 civilians because, otherwise, they'd lose 50, 100 or 1000 of their own civilians. That's why one target is fundamentally less ethical than the other.

Bullshit. If a terrorist group wants a foreign power to get out of its land or stop oppressing its people, how is that different from an army wanting the same thing?

Fair enough. But analogy aside the point is still pretty valid, I think, for the reasons I highlight above.

What reasons? You gave no reasons; you simply restate your position and expect me to accept it. You simply argue that this nebulous distinction you draw between military goals and political ones is some sort of huge ethical distinction, by lying and pretending that wars are always in self-defense (not true) while terrorism is never in self-defense (also not true).

As I say (and I don't want to make it look like I'm intentionally repeating myself here, I was at fault for not going into more detail from the start, for which I can only apologise) I think military targets are more about self defence, on some level. Rarely will it be done just to make a political gesture (though, naturally, this is possible. In which case the tactics become comparable to those of terrorists).

All wars serve political purposes. If a terrorist uses "terror" to get foreign occupiers out of his land or topple a certain government hostile to its interests, how is that different from a government using laser-guided bombs to do the same thing?

As for the intent of getting collateral damage I'd say the ethics of it come down to how avoidable they are.

If wars really were 100% self-defense as you say, you might have a point. However, you must have very little knowledge of the history of war to make such a pronouncement.

[Edi]

Mike, I don't think Woodlouse is being dishonest, or intending to anyway. He just seems to have a hard time getting around certain basic assumptions he makes (or that's how it seems to me anyway). A little bit like in the "Religion & Personal Responsibility" thread. Confused and flailing for an answer because he doesn't see the angle of attack is how I see him, unlike e.g. Sharky in the N&P threads about Canadian politics.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

Mike, I don't think Woodlouse is being dishonest, or intending to anyway. He just seems to have a hard time getting around certain basic assumptions he makes (or that's how it seems to me anyway). A little bit like in the "Religion & Personal Responsibility" thread. Confused and flailing for an answer because he doesn't see the angle of attack is how I see him, unlike e.g. Sharky in the N&P threads about Canadian politics.

Edi

Actually I think I can make a more solid argument here, but tomorrow. It pays to chill out with these things. I should hope I will not appear quite as incompetant as you seem to have assumed I am when I do. Here's hoping.

*crosses fingers, grins wildly and sings hallelujah from a rooftop*

[Plekhanov]

If by terrorism you mean the use of violence by irregular forces to achieve a political goal sometimes it is justifiable, the various resistance groups to the Nazis are of course a prime example of this. They committed all kinds of deeply unpleasant acts, blowing up cafes & bars frequented by occupying soldiers and officials, sinking civilian ferries, intimidation and violent attacks on ‘collaborators’, kidnappings and so forth yet most people see them as heroes as do I.

[Edi]

It's impossible to make an informed judgment call on which is more justified, terrorism or war, without knowing the political goals, because you need to assess the worth of the political goals first. As long as it stays in the abstract, it's like asking whether it's more ethical to kill someone by stabbing them or shooting them without knowing if it's killing in self-defense or killing to rob them.

Edi

[Darth Wong]

It's impossible to make an informed judgment call on which is more justified, terrorism or war, without knowing the political goals, because you need to assess the worth of the political goals first. As long as it stays in the abstract, it's like asking whether it's more ethical to kill someone by stabbing them or shooting them without knowing if it's killing in self-defense or killing to rob them.

Edi

However, since we are really discussing the idea that terrorism is somehow more intrinsically deplorable than conventional warfare, I don't think it's necessary to determine whether the goals of the war itself are laudable. The comparative difference (or lack thereof) holds regardless.

[Edi]

Precisely. I was trying to sum things up concisely and to illuminate why this is the case. That's where I think LW got tangled up earlier, so the post was largely for his benefit, so he can see where he made the mistake.

The discussion is on the abstract level, where the difference doesn't really exist.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

I mean that in general, you should state that (for example) the overall ethics principle is overall reduction of casualties, in which case the utilitarian "kill 10 people in order to save 1000" logic comes into effect. But that has nothing to do with your intent-based argument in which you pretend that killing the same number of people can have different moralities depending on whether there are military objectives rather than political ones which are served by this behaviour (even though military objectives themselves are only means to a political end).

So what is your guiding principle? It's not overall number of lives, so what is it?

I honestly don't have one (that I'm aware). I don't need to have found an ethical philosophy in order to make judgements on the ethics of something. I personally judge ethics on what I personally see as the most negative (harm, suffering etc) or positive (happiness, good health etc) fallout for specific actions.

Intent plays a part in judging the ethics of the person, rather than the action. Attempted murder is just as unethical to me as actual murder, for instance. So in a similar sense while military and terrorist casualities might be similar (or often the military actually kills more civilians), the terrorist is a less ethical person because they'd want to actually kill far more people than they managed, while the military commander (in most cases) wants to minimise the civilian losses. But the intent only goes so far, because there reaches a point where the perpetraitor of an action can't blame the harm they do on mere ignorance.

*shrug* I suppose utilitarian applies to me, to a degree. Intent is part of it, certainly, but it is not the entirity of my stance. Why does this even matter? It strikes me as similar to demanding to know the religious belief of someone before asking them what they think of Jesus, Shiva and the Great Buddha. It's not an essential prerequisitive for this debate.

In other words, your position is based on a lie. Collateral damages are a known consequence of an action beforehand, so they are not "unintended".

What does intent mean, Mike?

n.

1. Something that is intended; an aim or purpose. See Synonyms at intention.
2. Law. The state of one's mind at the time one carries out an action.
3. Meaning; purport.


adj.

1. Firmly fixed; concentrated: an intent gaze.
2. Having the attention applied; engrossed: The students, intent upon their books, did not hear me enter the room.
3. Having the mind and will focused on a specific purpose: was intent on leaving within the hour; are intent upon being recognized.

Collateral damage while it might be known about in advance (and it is fundamentally wrong to claim it is ALWAYS known. Sometimes it happens completely without prior knowledge), it is most certainly not ever the aim or purpose of the strike itself.

That it can be avoided does not mean it's automatically the intent of the strike.

Wrong. War is about achieving political objectives, whether they be independence from an undesired ruler (as is the case with wars of secession), acquisition of territory, or the installation of rulers in other countries who are politically aligned with your interests (as is the case with most US military actions for the past half-century). Terrorism is also about achieving political objectives. The end motivation is identical.

In the broader sense, yes. But a war is built on a series of tactical decisions, and those tactical decisions are very rarely for political benefit. They're designed to make your side safer from attack and the other side more vulnerable to it. A terrorist does not follow those same motivations. Every element of their decision is political.

What is this "unethical ones" shit? Are you seriously assuming that only one of the two parties can be unethical? If you can show that party A is "the unethical ones", then party B is automatically exonerated via logical fallacy?

No, not my intention, just a poor choice of words. Substitute "also unethical" for "unethical ones".

Bullshit. If a terrorist group wants a foreign power to get out of its land or stop oppressing its people, how is that different from an army wanting the same thing?

That's their objectives in a broader strategic sense. In the tactical sense there is a whole world of difference between the two decisions. A terrorist's attack will NEVER be for the immidiate security of the faction it represents, while a military attack by it's very nature is designed to root out some kind of threat (often immidiate) to the faction it represents.

As for the broader strategy, even here we're talking about a reasonable difference. A military strategy is designed to attack an opponent's warmaking potential until you can claim victory. You can objectively observe the progress of such a campaign. A terrorist strategy is far more abstract and typically far less successful (terrorism typically forces the defender to hunker down and dig it's heels in over a particular issue more).

What reasons? You gave no reasons; you simply restate your position and expect me to accept it. You simply argue that this nebulous distinction you draw between military goals and political ones is some sort of huge ethical distinction, by lying and pretending that wars are always in self-defense (not true) while terrorism is never in self-defense (also not true).

In a tactical sense wars ARE about protecting one's self on some level and in the same sense terrorist strikes are not because the very definition of a terrorist is someone who attacks civilians who are NOT an immidiate threat to the faction in question.

I'm judging the actions and their consequences, Mike. Their broader political objectives vary too much to judge with one broad sweeping brush, but their tactics most certainly CAN come under direct scrutiny.

All wars serve political purposes. If a terrorist uses "terror" to get foreign occupiers out of his land or topple a certain government hostile to its interests, how is that different from a government using laser-guided bombs to do the same thing?

I'm not even debating the political purpose, I'm debating the tactics they use to reach that objective. One side intentionally targets civilians and the other does not. The military might be aware that civilian casualities are inevitable, but that's not the same as intentionally trying to kill them. They will at least make efforts to minimise those casualties, while a terrorist will always try to maximise them.

The real issue in disparity is because of capability. A terrorist is by definition a desperate fighter, one without a real army to fight against an overwhelming opponent. They have less resources, equipment and often manpower than a trained military force. They are fundamentally less able to inflict casualities.

That does NOT mean a military force is devoid of ethical blame themselves, especially in cases where they could avoid civilian losses. But it is rarely their objective to target the innocent party, their target is the warmaking potential of their enemy.

If wars really were 100% self-defense as you say, you might have a point. However, you must have very little knowledge of the history of war to make such a pronouncement.

I am using a very liberal definition of the term self defence. By which once conflict begins anything that is a potential threat becomes a target. Sometimes the argument for defining certain things as a threat is hazy at best, and often unethical. But a terrorist strike is ALWAYS unethical, because their very objective every time is to attack a target which is not in any sense a direct threat to them. Literally every one of their targets is an innocent of war.

[Plekhanov]

So let me get this straight Woodlouse are you actually arguing that the resistance groups who fought the Nazi’s were unjustified and that all their actions were unethical?

[Lord Woodlouse]

So let me get this straight Woodlouse are you actually arguing that the resistance groups who fought the Nazi’s were unjustified and that all their actions were unethical?

If they target civilians it certainly IS unethical, yes. It would be more ethical for them to target military (and that includes the ruling government, since it was essentially a military dictatorship) infrastructure and personel.

Their objective is a noble one, their tactics would not be.

[Plekhanov]

So let me get this straight Woodlouse are you actually arguing that the resistance groups who fought the Nazi’s were unjustified and that all their actions were unethical?

If they target civilians it certainly IS unethical, yes. It would be more ethical for them to target military (and that includes the ruling government, since it was essentially a military dictatorship) infrastructure and personel.

Their objective is a noble one, their tactics would not be.

So you actually think that it would have been more ethical for resistance fighters to do nothing than fight the Nazis in the only way they feasibly could?

[Lord Woodlouse]

So let me get this straight Woodlouse are you actually arguing that the resistance groups who fought the Nazi’s were unjustified and that all their actions were unethical?

If they target civilians it certainly IS unethical, yes. It would be more ethical for them to target military (and that includes the ruling government, since it was essentially a military dictatorship) infrastructure and personel.

Their objective is a noble one, their tactics would not be.

So you actually think that it would have been more ethical for resistance fighters to do nothing than fight the Nazis in the only way they feasibly could?

Yes. If you think killing innocent civilians in any sense weakens a regime like that you are very much mistaken. We did it large scale on Dresden, they did it large scale on Coventry and London. It increases resolve. It's an ineffective tactic.

Killing civilians is no more ethical because of the regime they live under.

[Plekhanov]

So you actually think that it would have been more ethical for resistance fighters to do nothing than fight the Nazis in the only way they feasibly could?

Yes. If you think killing innocent civilians in any sense weakens a regime like that you are very much mistaken. We did it large scale on Dresden, they did it large scale on Coventry and London. It increases resolve. It's an ineffective tactic.

The resistance fighters killing of civilians be they customers in cafes occupying Nazis were eating in, active collaborators and so forth did weaken the Nazis, as every act of resistance made life more difficult for the Nazis and meant they had to use more resources than they otherwise would have to maintain their occupation.

Killing civilians is no more ethical because of the regime they live under.

So you think that PIRA pub bombings were as ethical as resistance Café bombings?

[Edi]

Woodlouse, all other things being equal, what is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist? You keep talking about actions and intent, but you ignore the end results of some actions because they don't suit your arguments.

Military actions against military targets that cause collateral damage in civilians (whether directly through bombs or indirectly through starvation, lack of medical facilities or similar) still produce the end result of X dead civilians regardless of intent. A terrorist attack (suicide bombing, snipers or whatever else) that produces the same X number of dead civilians is different in what way, assuming the end goals are equally noble?

It could even be argued that if the terrorist act results in instant or near-instant death of these X people and the collateral damage deaths come indirectly, the former is actually more ethical because the total amount of suffering is less.

Edi

[Lord Woodlouse]

The resistance fighters killing of civilians be they customers in cafes occupying Nazis were eating in, active collaborators and so forth did weaken the Nazis, as every act of resistance made life more difficult for the Nazis and meant they had to use more resources than they otherwise would have to maintain their occupation.

It also has the side effect of increasing public support for the draconian regime these very people are trying to undermine. They did not kill enough to actually effect production (unless you have a source for that) or in any sense change HOW they ran their regime.

So you think that PIRA pub bombings were as ethical as resistance Café bombings?

Absolutely. To think otherwise would be an outright double standard.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Woodlouse, all other things being equal, what is the difference between a soldier and a terrorist? You keep talking about actions and intent, but you ignore the end results of some actions because they don't suit your arguments.

Not at all, I understand and accept that a soldier killing civilians (even if it is NOT their intent) is unethical. The intent is the defining factor, however, because it defines the difference between deliberate and accidental death.

Accidental death can still be tantamount to criminal negligence, however.

Military actions against military targets that cause collateral damage in civilians (whether directly through bombs or indirectly through starvation, lack of medical facilities or similar) still produce the end result of X dead civilians regardless of intent. A terrorist attack (suicide bombing, snipers or whatever else) that produces the same X number of dead civilians is different in what way, assuming the end goals are equally noble?

Because the military action is done to neutralise a direct threat (otherwise the strike is pretty much an invalid one, and we're talking about a war crime which is potentially more unethical than either), and a terrorist attack is not.

To give an analogy it is like a man shooting a civilian dead, but another one accidently shooting a civilian dead through friendly fire while trying to kill a man who is aiming a gun at him.

It could even be argued that if the terrorist act results in instant or near-instant death of these X people and the collateral damage deaths come indirectly, the former is actually more ethical because the total amount of suffering is less.

Edi

It's certainly possible for collateral damage to be worse. Even more unethical. But it's almost never done deliberately, and that's an important distinction.

You'd not call friendly fire which injures a fellow solider from which he eventually dies from his wounds more unethical than a man walking up to a random civilian and shooting his head clean off, would you? Why is that?

[Plekhanov]

The resistance fighters killing of civilians be they customers in cafes occupying Nazis were eating in, active collaborators and so forth did weaken the Nazis, as every act of resistance made life more difficult for the Nazis and meant they had to use more resources than they otherwise would have to maintain their occupation.

It also has the side effect of increasing public support for the draconian regime these very people are trying to undermine. They did not kill enough to actually effect production (unless you have a source for that) or in any sense change HOW they ran their regime.

So? You stated that there activities ‘in no sense’ weakened the Nazi regime I was simply pointing out that they did, maybe not all that significantly in most of Northern Europe however resistance groups in Southern Europe, Greece and Yugoslavia for example were very successful in damaging the Nazi war effort.

So you think that PIRA pub bombings were as ethical as resistance Café bombings?

Absolutely. To think otherwise would be an outright double standard.

How is it a double standard? Resistance bombings of cafes killed occupying Nazi soldiers and innocent civilians, PIRA pub bombings killed soldiers of a legitimate democratic government and innocent civilians, do you really see no difference between the two acts?

On the subject of double standards how do you reconcile the fact that earlier in the thread you defended military attacks on civilian infrastructure yet you now condemn attacks which actually kill soldiers?

[Plekhanov]

By what standard is a resistance fighter who bombs a café knowing that he will kill both occupying soldiers and civilians worse than a WWII airman taking part in a bombing raid which will kill soldiers and civilians?

[Lord Woodlouse]

The resistance fighters killing of civilians be they customers in cafes occupying Nazis were eating in, active collaborators and so forth did weaken the Nazis, as every act of resistance made life more difficult for the Nazis and meant they had to use more resources than they otherwise would have to maintain their occupation.

It also has the side effect of increasing public support for the draconian regime these very people are trying to undermine. They did not kill enough to actually effect production (unless you have a source for that) or in any sense change HOW they ran their regime.

So? You stated that there activities ‘in no sense’ weakened the Nazi regime I was simply pointing out that they did, maybe not all that significantly in most of Northern Europe however resistance groups in Southern Europe, Greece and Yugoslavia for example were very successful in damaging the Nazi war effort.

So you think that PIRA pub bombings were as ethical as resistance Café bombings?

Absolutely. To think otherwise would be an outright double standard.

How is it a double standard? Resistance bombings of cafes killed occupying Nazi soldiers and innocent civilians, PIRA pub bombings killed soldiers of a legitimate democratic government and innocent civilians, do you really see no difference between the two acts?

On the subject of double standards how do you reconcile the fact that earlier in the thread you defended military attacks on civilian infrastructure yet you now condemn attacks which actually kill soldiers?

Because this is the first time you mention killing soldiers. That changes the whole intent of their attack, it means the military infrastructure is being effected at least slightly.

Give me an exact synopsis of their plans and what they did, otherwise I can't rightly defend or attack them, can I?

[Plekhanov]

Because this is the first time you mention killing soldiers. That changes the whole intent of their attack, it means the military infrastructure is being effected at least slightly.

Give me an exact synopsis of their plans and what they did, otherwise I can't rightly defend or attack them, can I?

Sorry I didn’t realise that you were completely unaware that resistance movements to Nazi occupation actually killed Nazi occupiers

[wolveraptor]

So you were under the impression that terrorists deliberately avoid targetting military personel and only go after civillians?

I find that hard to believe.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Because this is the first time you mention killing soldiers. That changes the whole intent of their attack, it means the military infrastructure is being effected at least slightly.

Give me an exact synopsis of their plans and what they did, otherwise I can't rightly defend or attack them, can I?

Sorry I didn’t realise that you were completely unaware that resistance movements to Nazi occupation actually killed Nazi occupiers

I assumed you were talking about something that actually had some relevance to the thing I was talking about, namely terrorists. Those who target civilians. Evidently I was wrong.

I would class such a resistance as a guerilla resistance. They might indeed employ terror tactics, but they are not purely limited to them. When and if they DO perpetrate a purely terrorist attack (one aimed at civilians) they are unethical in the sense I have described.

[Plekhanov]

Well that’s just fucking stupid did you even read the op? The whole point of this thread was to try to get away from the freedom fighter/terrorist thing and simply asking if the forms of informal political violence ie, ‘terrorism’ are ever justifiable, at which point did you arbitrarily decide that the thread was in fact about people who only target civilians?