Do you think that "normal" means of military action, like dropping a 500lb bomb, is less "terroristic" than essentially setting off a firecracker in their face/hands/pocket? Because, like, that's the alternative. If your position is that all forms of war are illegal, then you have the right to that opinion, but it's not a realistic position.

That depends on when the car detonates. If the car detonates when he and his guard enter it at 6 am near the defense ministry sure. If the car detonates when it is parked in the middle of Moscow at noon and 100 people are around then by pre-2022 standards it would be terrorism.

I think instead of these fake whataboutisms we should just admit that there is no universal bar and if it's "our team" then we are willing to change the standard.

In this case, we know that when Israel set off these pagers some innocent bystanders got hurt. No need to "whatabout".

"Opportunity to kill in base" is completely vague and varies depending on the military tribunal that will try you. Israel has, AFAIK, never said that there was no other way to kill those people.

>At most you could complain it is violates proportionality however no car bomb would kill 100 people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_car_bombings

Plain disinformation

>Not to mention your analogy is flawed - hezobllah doesn't have any marked bases.

This line of thinking justifies bombing (with massive collateral damage) any partisan /resistance movement that is constantly on the move. Which I guess makes sense since that is what Israel did a lot in Gaza.

why is that guy trying to fight against dictionary-definition of "terrorism"?

where did "intentionally creating a state of terror == terrorism" come from?

making up word definitions to win arguments?

Are you saying that's a valid military strike, and therefore can't possibly be terrorism? Suppose this person is so successful he kills 1,000 and generals and numerous quit their jobs and move in fear for their life, just to really clarify what you're arguing here.

I don't think the analogy is apt. Members of Hezbollah do not occupy a positions of similar relationship to Lebanon as US generals does to the US. As far as I've heard, flag officers and others are escorted by personal security for an attack of any sort, such as the 2009 Ft Hood shooting. [0]

Moving past that, a civilian citizen of Venezuela in the US who performed actions against US military targets would not be a valid military strike since that person would not be an identifiable member or Venezuela's military. It would more akin to a spy or assassin. Below is an excerpt from an article representing a US-centric view of history [1].

  But the right to kill one’s enemy during war was not considered wholly 
  unregulated. During the 16th century, Balthazar Ayala agreed with Saint 
  Augustine’s contention that it “is indifferent from the standpoint of justice 
  whether trickery be used” in killing the enemy, but then distinguished 
  trickery from “fraud and snares” (The Law and Duties of War and Military 
  Discipline). Similarly, Alberico Gentili, writing in the next century, found 
  treachery “so contrary to the law of God and of Nature, that although I may 
  kill a man, I may not do so by treachery.” He warned that treacherous killing 
  would invite reprisal (Three Books on the Law of War). And Hugo Grotius 
  likewise explained that “a distinction must be made between assassins who 
  violate an express or tacit obligation of good faith, as subjects resorting 
  to violence against a king, vassals against a lord, soldiers against him whom 
  they serve, those also who have been received as suppliants or strangers or 
  deserters, against those who have received them; and such as are held by no 
  bond of good faith” (On the Law of War and Peace).
  

1. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/

Edit: /Hamas/Hezbollah/

Obviously he must wear a uniform while actually conducting the attack though.

I'd understand if you were arguing against using excessive force, eg using thermobaric weapons in residential neighborhoods against an individual target, but there hardly exists a more targeted method than the pager attack / arson of specific houses.

If I remember correctly, the assailant must be dressed in some sort of military uniform to be considered a prisoner of war if captured. Lacking the uniform, it would be espionage and no Geneva Convention rights.

Obviously, neither side in the conflict is adhering to these rules.

I should give this a read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

It is still important to have might even if you aren't in that camp because inevitably you will run into people with that worldview and they cannot be reasoned with without might.

No it's not. The size of the American economy, it's extensive trade, the independence of the Central Bank and the rule of law and commitment to paying debts do that. Americans do not force anyone to trade in USD.

> No it's not. The size of the American economy, it's extensive trade, the independence of the Central Bank and the rule of law and commitment to paying debts do that. Americans do not force anyone to trade in USD.

The OP is correct, historically. US might, albeit aimed at anyone attempting to disrupt trade, WAS the basis for US hegemony. The US effectively policed the largest oceans, ensuring world trade was reliable and cost-stabilized since WW2. As long as you dealt in USD, you were supported. A type of soft influence that was very effective.

This has been disrupted recently. The US has declined to re-invest in the navy (ship construction has almost bottomed out), routed most of the navy to east asia, and antagonized other nations by disrupting agreements that could have sustained on momentum. This year's farming subsidy (to the tune of 12 billion) is due to those abandoned agreements, paired with unnecessary antagonism.

And how did the American economy get to that size without the military protecting it from IDK, the USSR just taking it?

>As long as you dealt in USD, you were supported.

And what happened to you if you wanted to trade with the USSR? You're omitting that part

> And how did the American economy get to that size without the military protecting it from IDK, the USSR just taking it?

The US hegemony successfully strangled the USSR leading to the current Russian oligarchy (with a dictator at the top). The USSR never found itself in a position to expand its borders without threatening an internal insurrection, a coup, and/or the extermination of most of the military forces in a single conflict. US funded the rebuilding of Europe as part of the manufactured hegemony, allowing free trade to supply europe with cheap goods and workers safely across the waters, or under strict supervision of US intelligence for deals with the USSR and the rest of Asia. The USSR wasn't part of these agreement negotiations per se. They had to deal with their own internal politics and manufacturing limitations, while negotiating with countries that had a veto-enabled silent partner.

TBH, I have no idea what people are talking about when are implying "the American economy" is large. It's 8% of world pop and is largely an exporter of natural resources. The strength of the US economy is the reliability of the bond market. The USSR had no chance of taking the US, but did meaningfully threaten the security of the US during the cuban missile crisis. USSR was considered a credible threat to most of Europe for the duration of the cold war, in a carefully structured scenario of mutual destruction.

> And what happened to you if you wanted to trade with the USSR? You're omitting that part

World politics is not as simple as cause and effect. Many countries did deal with embargoed/sanctioned countries, including the US - notably the sale of grain to the USSR during the 70s. If you wanted first crack at new trade deals or wanted security guarantees from the US for delicate trade deals, you had to make allowances according to US wishes. Germany made it clear that they were going to purchase natural gas from the USSR as a matter of their own energy security. The US made an allowance. Maybe one US partner attacked another (Iraq vs Kuwait), the US would step in militarily. You wanted to sell oil to Russia? Sanctions or embargoes or worse, you were not able to call on the US navy when your shipping lanes were disrupted. Maybe the US called on some pirates regularly to raid your ships, maybe not. Thems the breaks, mafia style.

There isn't a universally agreed upon definition, but generally it refers to targeting non-combatants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

For example, when the Allies tried to assassinate Hitler with a smuggled briefcase bomb during WW2, that wasn't terrorism: that was just regular warfare. Hitler was the leader of Germany and directed its military.

Similarly, smuggling pager bombs to members of Hezbollah generally wouldn't qualify as terrorism, since Hezbollah a) is a militia (famously it's the largest non-state militia in the world), and b) was actively fighting a war against Israel — a war that Hezbollah themselves initiated.

Good luck trying to get them though.

As an American, I certainly hope they would fail. But do I think it's legal? Yes: it's a targeted strike on the leader of an enemy country they'd theoretically be at war with. Do I think it's wise? Well — no, Venezuela has a much smaller military, and assassinating the U.S. President would trigger a massive war that would devastate Venezuela for decades while modestly inconveniencing American taxpayers. But legal? Yes.

So then China could, at any point, call up the US president and say "Look there's a drone in the room with you right now. Shut down all your nuclear facilities or I hereby declare war and you're dead within 10 seconds." Then failing that they could hit the VP next, Secretary of state, etc etc.

Point being the idea of sticking with WW2 "rules" with current and future technology is laughably implausible.

And I guarantee you the citizens of Israel would NOT think it's perfectly legit, legal, and fair if Netenyahu got assassinated with a drone along with his military commanders.

If your opponent has way better weapons technology than you: well, it sucks to be on the losing side. But you are, and that's how war goes sometimes. That's what happened to Japan, and the Mayans. If one side has guns and the other has obsidian spears, there's no law that the side with guns has to drop them on the ground because it's unfair to the stone-age side.

there was 0 discussion about "legit, legal and fair". the only discussion that took place it's that security measures need to be improved to prevent things like this in future.

We've massed forces for an attack, attacked their ships, violated their airspace with combat aircraft (that's today), and extensively and publicly threatened them. They'd be in their legal rights to strike preemptively, including possibly a decapitation strike (this is why the Dubya administration kept repeating the term "preemptive strike", even though it was obviously nowhere near applying in the case of Iraq—it was a way of asserting its legal basis)

[edit] As thereisnospork points out in a sibling comment, however, this doesn't mean it'd be a good idea.

Not sure why you have doubts about this.

[0] Shouldn't - classic example of a tactical win being a strategic blunder. Killing the American president and would solidify American public support for the war - which would probably be undesirable in the balance.

But that isn't the problem here, luckily. It was an extremely targeted operation, generals are military target and know the risks of war. A war that they started in this case.

This isn't part of any modern definition of terrorism, otherwise war is terrorism, stalking is terrorism, bullying is terrorism &c.

You know terrorism doesn't mean people were terrorized, right? Surely you understand that.