• n2burns@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 days ago

    I’m not sure what you mean by “spreading terror”. IMHO, most actions that would meet those requirements are war crimes.

    We can debate whether pretty much any law is moral in our own opinion. However, I think laws are a good place to start with what rules should be followed. They can be changed/updated as necessary.

    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      8 days ago

      Yeah, I can understand the initial trust in law, and maybe debatting it later. This is not my way of thinking but i admit it’s really reasonable.

      For the terror, my reflexion is the following : army/cops try to maintain a specific system in place and have 2 ways to do so. For people who (more or less) actively defy their authority, they take violent actions (kidnapping, pressure, wounding, killing, etc). For people who are not (yet) actively defying their authority, they hope that their violent actions will make people afraid of them, so they do not act against authority. I refer to thz first part as killing (though it’s not only killing but more generally violent actions against people), and the second part as terror.

      So, imho, though war crimes may spray more terror in a single act than usual army stuff, both spray terror in their own way.

      • n2burns@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 days ago

        I think you watch too many movies. From my experience serving in the CAF alongside the infantry, all the actions you describe would not be condoned and anyone taking those actions would be charged. Maybe I’m biased, but I was always told the goal of our operations were “capturing hearts and minds” which would be in direct conflict with taking terrorist actions.