Can Attacking Military Sites of a Nation at War be "Terrorism"?

[brandon]

Good short article from Glenn Greenwald.




https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/07/17/can-attacking-military-sites-nation-war-terrorism/

[Pericles]

In order for such attacks to meet the criteria required by the laws of land warfare, the "attacker" has to meet certain obligation - this first failure would be to wear a sign recognizable at a distance signifying status as a combatant. Next fail is to use the civil population as protection for military operations. The correct term for such attacks is operating as a partisan. Captured partisans may be executed, so it is not a problem for us, assuming you don't mind having the military, rather than the civil legal system handle such cases.

[Ronin Truth]

Probably yes, if terrorists are carrying it out the attacks.

BTW, war is the rich man's terror. Terror is the poor man's war.

[Anti Federalist]

In order for such attacks to meet the criteria required by the laws of land warfare, the "attacker" has to meet certain obligation - this first failure would be to wear a sign recognizable at a distance signifying status as a combatant. Next fail is to use the civil population as protection for military operations. The correct term for such attacks is operating as a partisan. Captured partisans may be executed, so it is not a problem for us, assuming you don't mind having the military, rather than the civil legal system handle such cases.

Good point.

Yes, this is what the proper term would be: "partisans".