Except when nations do it and say oops! It was an accident. We didn't mean it! Then what is it called?
If it's actually an accident? It's called an accident and it happens all the time. If it's actually intentional then it's called a war crime.
And does it matter to the victims?
It should, since there are likely to be FAR more civilian casualties when civilians are targeted.
It's a crock. You can't prevent civilian casualties in a war.
Of course you can't. But you can minimize them. And that's what the Geneva convention requires through the law of war concept called "proportionality".
Civilian casualties aren't a crime.
DISPROPORTIONATE civilian casualties are a crime.
Since you will no doubt misinterpret proportionality let me say right now that it's specifically whether the anticipated civilian casualties are proportional to the anticipated military advantage gained. Note carefully the word "anticipated", it's crucial to the legal concept both times it was used: anticipated casualties vs anticipated gain.
Blowing up a nightclub, killing children on the street, these things the IRA did had only anticipated civilian casualties and no anticipated military gain. That's terrorism.
And whether or not someone is a terrorist or freedom fighter does as well.
Nope. That's the kind of bullshit that terrorists say. It's not a matter of perspective. If you target civilians you are either a terrorist or a war criminal or both. We can debate the difference between a terrorist (typically non state actor) and a war criminal (typically a state actor) but either way is a vile crime.
I say history decides the labels.
Nope.
Let's take an example from a winning side I support: Irgun were Jewish terrorists, period. Even though they fought on the winning side and even though they were granted an amnesty. The attack on Deir Yassin was simply vile terrorism. Unarmed civilians were targeted. Surrendering civilians were lined up and murdered. There's absolutely no justification for that whatsoever, it was atrocious. The fact that Irgun later disarmed in exchange for an amnesty doesn't change the vile nature of that terrorist act.
IRA terrorist acts in the 1970s didn't later become acceptable because twenty years later the IRA disarmed.
As it always has. I give the IRA the title of freedom fighter. You say terrorist.
This is not a matter of opinion, you are simply wrong.
