Can armies be terrorists?

Originally posted by agryson
In that case there already exists a body of law dealing with war, war crimes and human rights abuses. And my use of the word domestic is intended to limit it to within the borders of that legislature. For example, if the Iranian army thing was terrorising their own people, with domestic legislative approval, it would fall under human rights legislation, not ...[text shortened]... s, they should be tried under human rights abuses and then terrorist legislation. In that order.

Were the Allies in WWII terrorists? Would the Chinese air force be terrorists if they used the kind of saturation bombing we used in WWII against factories, etc where civilians worked?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Were the Allies in WWII terrorists? Would the Chinese air force be terrorists if they used the kind of saturation bombing we used in WWII against factories, etc where civilians worked?

No, when war has been declared officially, a different body of law comes into force I believe. Also, the allies in WWII generally avoided civilian casualties if at all possible I think. The target is the factory or the train line, not the civilians, it's just impossible to get the factory without hitting the civilians. Though most raids of such types are done at night to minimise such civilian casualties I believe.

Originally posted by agryson
In that case there already exists a body of law dealing with war, war crimes and human rights abuses. And my use of the word domestic is intended to limit it to within the borders of that legislature. For example, if the Iranian army thing was terrorising their own people, with domestic legislative approval, it would fall under human rights legislation, not ...[text shortened]... s, they should be tried under human rights abuses and then terrorist legislation. In that order.

According to the link, the US thinks Iran's Revolutionary Guard is acting in other countries in a terroristic way. So it is not working within its borders, but would still fall under human rights legislation?


Note: ATY... I did not check on the correctness of the link 🙂

Originally posted by lepomis
According to the link, the US thinks Iran's Revolutionary Guard is acting in other countries in a terroristic way. So it is not working within its borders, but would still fall under human rights legislation?


Note: ATY... I did not check on the correctness of the link 🙂

Well, that probably is the case, but to justify seizing assets or freezing monetary transfers, I think that they should require evidence. Also, if it can be shown that a component of Irans military is performing, or directly aiding attacks targetted at civilians (as a means to and end rather than unavoidable casualties), then I think that would fall under human rights abuses.

Originally posted by agryson
Well, that probably is the case, but to justify seizing assets or freezing monetary transfers, I think that they should require evidence. Also, if it can be shown that a component of Irans military is performing, or directly aiding attacks targetted at civilians (as a means to and end rather than unavoidable casualties), then I think that would fall under human rights abuses.

I see you addressed that in a different post... sorry for the redundancy. Anyway, first the US should go the human rights route and if that fails then the terrorist route. It might be better if the Iraqi government did all of this instead of the US.

Originally posted by agryson
No, when war has been declared officially, a different body of law comes into force I believe. Also, the allies in WWII generally avoided civilian casualties if at all possible I think. The target is the factory or the train line, not the civilians, it's just impossible to get the factory without hitting the civilians. Though most raids of such types are done at night to minimise such civilian casualties I believe.

What if an organization like Al Qaeda declares war on the US?

Originally posted by lepomis
I see you addressed that in a different post... sorry for the redundancy. Anyway, first the US should go the human rights route and if that fails then the terrorist route. It might be better if the Iraqi government did all of this instead of the US.

I definitely agree on the HR route before terror route, but if it was Iraq pressing the charges, it would just seem as if they were being told what to do (which the local population probably wouldn't like), which wouldn't help the situation. America has much more clout anyway, though it's made harder for them since they didn't join the International Court, that may be the real reason for going this route.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What if an organization like Al Qaeda declares war on the US?

They're not a state nor are they bound to a state (like the Tamil Tigers or Khmer Rouge are) so while they can state that they're declaring war, it doesn't bring them under human rights legislation, it's just them blowing hot air. Even if they were bound to a state and did that, they wouldn't be brought under HR legislation unless they were an official instrument of that state or that their actions were officially sanctioned by that state, in which case we can declare war without a crisis of conscience.