MuadDib

I tend to be finding the same 4 or 5 news stories repeating all over this section so I wanted to get a broader debate going about something not specifically current.

In what cases are guerilla tactics acceptable? What distinguishes guerilla tactics from terrorism? Is it ever acceptable to target civilians? Civilian structures?

Most reasonable people think that there ought to be humanitarian limits on what methods and targets are acceptable in warfare. For example, assassination, weapons of mass destruction, civilian targeting, terrorism, etc are mostly considered unacceptable. They bring about a harsh reaction from people around the world and will often times bring outside parties into conflicts. On the other hand, war is hell. If your fighting for something worth more to you then life is it acceptable to break some of these "rules" if it can bring you total victory and leave you only with your conscious to deal with? The United States, as well as almost every other country on the planet, have at times broken certain rules. Back in the days of organized battle the United States ravaged rules of engagement in sake of its revolution. Allied forces targetted civilian outposts in its battle against the Axis nations when things looked most grim. We nuked mainland Japan killing civilians and military personnel alike in the name of saving our boys lives. The list goes on and on. Both "good guys" and "bad guys" alike do it when it suites their needs. So what do you guys think. Are their rules of war? Should they be followed, and in what circumstances? Or is it just a clever posturing to mask the real grotesqueness of warfare and make it seem more humane? If so, should we abandon these archiac precepts in the name of victory, truth, and/or progress towards less conflict?

__________________
"The courts that first rode the warhorse of virtual representation into battle on the res judicata front invested their steed with near-magical properties." ~27 F.3d 751