War tactics

[CBL4]

Here is a question for everyone involved in these terrorism discussions. Let’s assume you are involved in a cause that is morally just because you are fighting against some evil. War may or may not have been declared.

Which of the following actions are OK?
1) Peaceful civil disobedience that causes minimal damage.
2) Peaceful civil disobedience that causes property damage.
3) Bombing a military target in a manner that is unlikely to cause harm to civilians.
4) Bombing a military target in a manner that is likely to cause harm to civilians.
5) Placing a military target next to a civilian target.
6) Bombing a civilian target.
7) Assassinating an evil person in a situation that is very unlikely to cause harm to civilians.
8) Assassinating an evil person in a situation that is likely to cause harm to civilians.
Please feel free to place limits on when things would be OK and when they would not be.

I would like this discussion to remain apolitical and I request that you not bring up current situations and stick to hypothetical. If you must use examples from the real world, I would prefer you avoid the Palestinian/Israel conflict because of the emotions involved in it.

CBL

 

[Luke T.]

Some options depend on if you are declaring "war" on your own country or on another country.

A peaceful protest, for example, would not have an effect on another country.

 

[crimresearch]

Philosophical arguments about the morality of various degrees of use of force can be constructed from more than one point of view.

Terrorism is a means to 'leverage' a political agenda, using the media.

Don't confuse the tactic with the cause, it would be like confusing a politician who plays the race card, with the civil rights movement.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Which of the following actions are OK?
1) Peaceful civil disobedience that causes minimal damage.
2) Peaceful civil disobedience that causes property damage.
3) Bombing a military target in a manner that is unlikely to cause harm to civilians.
4) Bombing a military target in a manner that is likely to cause harm to civilians.
5) Placing a military target next to a civilian target.
6) Bombing a civilian target.
7) Assassinating an evil person in a situation that is very unlikely to cause harm to civilians.
8) Assassinating an evil person in a situation that is likely to cause harm to civilians.

1,2,3, and 7 are all fine by me. I'd add that for 7, it should be done in complete secrecy. If you can't make it look like an accident or natural death, then it's probably not worth the consequences. Unless you can frame someone else. That might be advantageous, if you want to start a fuss. You could even pull off the assassination and frame yourself, and add righteous indignation to your cause. Any evidence that you actually are guilty can be attributed to the conspiracy against you.

4 and 8 are only justifiable if there really is no other way.

6...depends on what it is. A school? No. Communications --television, radio, internet relay...maybe. Going out and saying "let's kill some civilians to make them upset" is wrong, but sometimes a legitimate military purpose is served by taking out some infrastructure.

5...is foolish. I wouldn't do it because it simply asks for trouble. If I were dictator, my military sites would be hidden extremely well, with plenty of decoy fake military sites badly hidden. Both real and decoy targets would be far from civilian places. And some of the badly hidden decoys would in fact be real, by way of the double bluff.

Reading over this, I'm forced to conclude that I'm a terrible person. Good thing I'm not in charge.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Don't confuse the tactic with the cause, it would be like confusing a politician who plays the race card, with the civil rights movement.

The ends and means are not the same, but each has a separate moral valuation which must be taken into account to assess the morality of the overall action.

 

[American]

2) Peaceful civil disobedience that causes property damage.

Excuse you.

If that's how it is, then I'll just call it peaceful self-defense when I smash your f'cking skull inside-out for trashing my home or business. How's that for euphemism?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Excuse you.

If that's how it is, then I'll just call it peaceful self-defense when I smash your f'cking skull inside-out for trashing my home or business. How's that for euphemism?

You will be peacefully reeducated by the People's Caring Committee afterward.