News Is Targeting Civilians in War Considered Terrorism?

[Adam]

AFTER answering the first three polls, answer this one. Here they are:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43243
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43244
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=43245

Now, is it terrorism if a state-controlled military force, in the course of pursuing an objective, knowlingly and deliberately targets civilians?

 

[Clausius2]

Here I voted yes. Killing deliberately civilians by an occidental army, is worse than terrorism. We are clever enough to know the consequences, so it is more deplorable because of that.

Congratulations for your test, Adam. Very curious.

 

[Smurf]

Voted Yes, good work.

 

[Artman]

Voted no again, but may reconsider. The State sponser part is a yes, but when you add the word military it changes to no. It then moves to war crimes.

Terrorism deals more with unreasonable objectives. Their objectives are not those of entire nations, they are personal. That's why they usually aren't supported by entire nations.

The entire USA wanted the end of WWII. Dropping those bombs was a means to that end. The idea of just demonstrating the power the atom bomb was considered prior to dropping the bomb, but it was decided that this would not be sufficient to bring about acceptance of the terms of surrender be sought by the USA.

 

[GENIERE]

should be discourged by the monitor!

 

[Evo]

Maybe I should draw up some guidelines on the number of polls posted at once on such closely related topics.

Each poll though is a valid topic, so I will let them stay.

 

[plover]

Answers:

1. Pretty clearly yes.
2. Pretty clearly these were acts of war, not terrorism. Whether they were legitimate is a different question.
3. (Also 4) As phrased, the implied intent of the last two seems to be questions of the form: "Is it always the case that X?" Neither statement is specific enough to support a definite answer.

I really don't get why people are fussing over the word 'terrorism', as if labelling an action terrorism changes the moral legitimacy of the action. Some morally unsupportable actions are best called terrorism, other morally unsupportable actions are best called something else. What's the problem?

The only thing I've been able to come up with is that the word 'terrorism' is being made an issue due to the use of the phrase "War on Terror" by the U.S. government and media. If that is the real issue, why not just say so?

On the other hand, if the real issue is when or if targeting civilians during military action is ever morally legitimate, why fulminate about terminology?

 

[Smurf]

Good point Plover, the legitimacy of the action does not change Right and Wrong.