Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)
I think the big difference is whether the force follows the rules of war or not. Obviously the CAF has had some violations, but not on an organisational level like the IRGC.
Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).
The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?
(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).
I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.
I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.
So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.
Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.
Who makes the official rules of war? Who decides who follows those rules and who doesn’t? Obviously the practical answer is the UN, ICC, ICJ, etc, but note that the UN is itself made up of countries that all field militaries. They write the rules such that they’re in, and others who are less powerful are out. And as we’ve seen recently, they don’t even apply the rules uniformly. Russia and the US have committed war crimes in their invasions of Ukraine and Iraq respectively, but the general consensus is that their militaries are still not terrorist organizations. Or arguably the most clear example, the IDF. Few organizations could claim to commit more war crimes with such predictability and regularity than the IDF. Yet most of the world considers them legitimate, but considers groups like ISIS to not be, even though conduct wise they’re similarly abhorrent.
The rules of war are basically “if you win it’s ok” and everything else is just politics.
Russia and the US have committed war crimes in their invasions of Ukraine and Iraq respectively, but the general consensus is that their militaries are still not terrorist organizations.
War Crimes != Terrorism. Some acts qualify as both, but words have meanings, and I think it’s important we recognize that. I don’t think the actions of the US in Iran would make a reasonable person say the US Military is a terrorist organization, though they are definitely harbouring some war criminals.
I think the other thing is asking, what’s the value in labelling an organization? Telling your friend with a substance problem that they’re an addict/alcoholic might just drive them away and towards worse influences. Or telling off your toxic coworker might be cathartic, but it’ll probably just make the situation worse.
PS I’m pretty sure labelling the IDF as “similarly abhorrent” isn’t very helpful.
I agree with the part that labeling organizations is mostly pointless, if not harmful. An underlying goal in my intentional conflation here is that the difference is pointless. Hopefully someone read that and was like “huh I guess these two things aren’t all that different”. Governments call the violent armed forces they like “militaries” and the ones they don’t like “terrorists”.
Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)
I think the big difference is whether the force follows the rules of war or not. Obviously the CAF has had some violations, but not on an organisational level like the IRGC.
Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).
The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?
(If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)
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.
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.
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.
I didn’t watch tat much movies, but maybe you’re right and this all is just me being dumb or disconnected from reality. Maybe I’m also biased by my interactions with cops and/or soldiers (which were mostly bad experiences).
I guess CAF is canadian army ? I think during time of peace, the army does not take that much violent actions against its own population (although cops do). So it’s more about the second part of spreading fear to keep control : if anyone goes against their power, they will be allowed to take these violent actions. I confess that I do not know much about canadian army, so maybe I’m wrong. But I think violence and terror are only clearly visible during periods of tension, and as Canada seems to be quite peaceful, maybe violence and terror are juste dimmed for now.
I do not consider violence and terror as goals of military : i sincerely believe that most people in armies have no interest in them, and that they are here for other reasons (patriotism, security, a sense of belonging, etc). I think violence and terror are rather aspects or consequences of military : you need them to achieve other goals, which could be positive (control, security, enforcing the State). Good actions (summarized by “capturing hearts and minds” if i understood), are also aspects/consequences/tools armies may use to reach these goals.
So, to my eyes, making good things remains compatible with using terror, because this one relies on the mere possibility of violence. It also seems compatible with violence itself, if you consider both can affect different targets at the same time. All of these are tools they may need for other goals, positive or not. But I remain quite certain that violence and terror are necessary consequences in the wide panel of actions an army can take, despite the goodwill of every person implied.
Not sure if this is clear or clever though, sorry if anything sounds dumb and bothers you.
Who makes the official rules of war? Who decides who follows those rules and who doesn’t? Obviously the practical answer is the UN, ICC, ICJ, etc, but note that the UN is itself made up of countries that all field militaries. They write the rules such that they’re in, and others who are less powerful are out. And as we’ve seen recently, they don’t even apply the rules uniformly. Russia and the US have committed war crimes in their invasions of Ukraine and Iraq respectively, but the general consensus is that their militaries are still not terrorist organizations. Or arguably the most clear example, the IDF. Few organizations could claim to commit more war crimes with such predictability and regularity than the IDF. Yet most of the world considers them legitimate, but considers groups like ISIS to not be, even though conduct wise they’re similarly abhorrent.
The rules of war are basically “if you win it’s ok” and everything else is just politics.
War Crimes != Terrorism. Some acts qualify as both, but words have meanings, and I think it’s important we recognize that. I don’t think the actions of the US in Iran would make a reasonable person say the US Military is a terrorist organization, though they are definitely harbouring some war criminals.
I think the other thing is asking, what’s the value in labelling an organization? Telling your friend with a substance problem that they’re an addict/alcoholic might just drive them away and towards worse influences. Or telling off your toxic coworker might be cathartic, but it’ll probably just make the situation worse.
PS I’m pretty sure labelling the IDF as “similarly abhorrent” isn’t very helpful.
I agree with the part that labeling organizations is mostly pointless, if not harmful. An underlying goal in my intentional conflation here is that the difference is pointless. Hopefully someone read that and was like “huh I guess these two things aren’t all that different”. Governments call the violent armed forces they like “militaries” and the ones they don’t like “terrorists”.