Terrorism is tactic in which the perpetrators target (innocent) civilians to achieve an end.

Isn't that what economic sanctions do?

Where's the "terror", violence, threats?

Juk

Ask the North Koreans or Russians. (Their militaries aren't being affected directly).

North Koreans and Russians aren't in direct fear of being killed or tortured as a result of sanctions though?

I also think they have different targets with the same aim:

- Terrorists are trying to directly influence the policy of leaders with a "do this or we'll harm your subjects" message (with a very small proportion of the subjects actually getting harmed).

- Sanctions are much more about attempting to indirectly influence the policy of leaders by harming a very large proportion of the subjects and a "do this or your populus will harm you" message.

Juk

Depends if you think people should be held accountable for the government they have. Those people have a chance of stopping their government. Outside civilian (like the innocent Ukrainians being murdered at the moment) don’t.

NATO, et al., are not trying to directly influence Putin with sanctions?

I'd use the word "civilians" instead of "subjects".

Was Nagasaki and Hiroshima "a very small proportion"?

Depends on who you ask, terrorism is a word used in many different ways and from different ideological perspectives.

But there is nothing in the principle of state sovereignity that denies states to wield economy aggressively in foreign policy. Of course, most countries rely on trade agreements and more cooperative foreign relations.

All that said, sanctions pale in comparisons to the images we see from the senseless butchery commited by Russian armed forces in Bucha, so to me the notion of calling sanctions «terrorism» is absurd. I have no problem admitting that I see Russia’s actions as reckless, destabilizing and evil however, which makes my conlusion foregone.

No because Putin is insulated from their effects - the ineffective 2014 sanctions were treated as a complete joke for example.

The way they hurt Putin is by hurting the populus who in turn see ousting him as a way of getting back to normal.

Juk

Bush was insulated from 9/11.
The Emperor of Japan was insulated.

"hurting the populous" (innocent civilians) is the terrorist tactic.

It just seems like we're back to the definition again?

Would you class the USA's interference in Central/South American politics, or the West's interference during the "Arab Spring" uprising, as terrorism?

They certainly hurt the populous with an aim to effect a change of leadership?

Juk

No because civilians aren't being targeted just for the sake of it. The Russian government is being targeted, but civilians experience collateral damage in the process.

The tactic was used. But overall, I would say no.

this is how I see it.


if you do not believe in interventionist wars, outside self defense or a last resort, and you believe ultimately that gov't are representatives of the country and the people they govern, then sanctions are the best way to try and influence change.

If for instance you are CEO of a business and are blatantly bigoted in a way the community does not want to tolerate but the law cannot address, it is entirely appropriate for people to sanction (refuse economic transactions) with the business.. If those sanctions on the business also hurt the shareholders and the employees then they need to seek to change the CEO.

It is absolutely appropriate for the people to use that pressure to seek change and in the case of country to country relations it is far more appropriate then regime change wars, the only other real option.

The American people have done exactly jack **** to make sure that the war criminals behind Iraq and Afghanistan were held accountable. Therefore they should not be hypocrites in calling for other common citizens to be sanctioned. America is a bigger blight on the world than any of these sanctioned countries. It takes a giant piece of **** to sit comfortably in America and bleat about how other countries need to overthrow their leaders.

As Putin actively ethnically cleanses a country of its populace you scream WHATABOUT what America has done wrong.

You must be under 25. Why do western countries allow children like you to vote? Minimum voting age should be 30.

USA is the best country this world has ever seen. People in crappy countries need to up their game, become rich (like the USA).

What exactly have Iraq and Afganistan done to improve the world?

Terrorism is unlawful. Sanctions are lawful.

What are you saying? It's impossible for those in power to commit terrorism? You a big Biden/Pelosi fan?

Who's laws are the correct ones? The UN's, God's?

m-w.com's definition of terrorism:

"the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion."

Says nothing about the law.

economic sanctions fit this definition better than 9/11.

Not a huge Biden/Pelosi fan. They're too conservative for my tastes.

Yes, I am saying that those in power generally cannot commit terrorism, so long as they are acting within their appropriate powers.

The proposed UN convention on international terrorism (still being negotiated) includes unlawfulness as part of its definition. That the actions of a state are not terrorism does not mean they cannot be classified as war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity or some other form of malfeasance.

The definition of terrorism in the US Code stipulates that terrorism is carried out by subnational groups or clandestine agents.

This Wikipedia article may be useful for some:

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

Well I'm 45 and agree with Bakes

I hate to break it to you but without the Persian empire (of which both these countries were once part of along with Iran) you probably wouldn't actually be sitting in the USA writting this post... I'll leave it up to you to find out why

Juk

OMFG, that's scary.

I'm talking about the dictionary definition of terrorism, not legalese.

.

The formal, legal definition of terrorism is more important. You can't distill the concept of terrorism down into a single line in a dictionary.

And I'm saying that the same action might be terrorism if committed by a subnational group but a war crime if committed by a state.

That's not true at all. Both OBL and Saddam are dead.