And that line of thinking is just ignorant and annoying. First of all, asymmetrical warfare is a completely different topic from terrorism. The goal of assymetric warfare is to inflict highest damage with lowest resources. You attack targets with maximal value but minimal defense. You disrupt communication lines, logistics, take targets of opportunity to weaken your enemy. You’d know that if you’ve graduated SWA. But nooo…
And terror? Just going again some civvies, blowing up something completely unimportant like shopping malls, theaters and other useless for military advancement stuff.
There is a saying that terrorism is poor man’s war. But even with being poor you can remain professional and do significant damage to the enemy instead of just causing annoyance.
Consider one of our infamous figures in here. “Im gonna kill a million of minmatar slaves to hurt minmatars!” Yes, he did kill, they started crying, wriggling like worms, yelling at him, making names. But did he hurt TLF? ■■■■ no. He hurt only himself, because it was HIS ships and HIS slaves. This is another example - now of religious terrorism. The guy just wasted money to kill people without even minimal advancement. Killing just one TLF rifter might not cause such emotional impact, but it would deal way more significant blow against TLF than him killing even ten millions of his slaves.
Ancestors choke, are you ■■■■■■■ serious? Make your actions known? Make effort to “remove civilians?” Are you kidding me? Are you what, some sort of gallentean, who makes such “rules” just to violate them? “Required”? Required by WHOM exactly? You can relocate your own civilians from under attack if you know the enemy will strike in there. But if you’re planning an attack against enemy? Well, if you will come to them to “make a legitimate effort to remove civilians”, I’ll just laugh my pants off and wave goodbye to your assembled strike force.
Well, now THAT was myoptic. Sweet Maker, that sounds like you’re some sort of cop or security officer. Why would you need to board that transport in the first place? I’ll give you counter-example - but with exact reason.
Imagine you have a FDU command center on a planet, and they settled in a bunker deep below the surface, so you can’t glass these rats out from the orbit. What can you do - is to send the assault team. But storming high defended bunker would bring too many casualties, and you decide to test them with faint attacks. Meanwhile, you’ve got intel that they’re running low on ammunition and sending in a whole iteron of goodies to support FDU in there. Would you board that?
Honesly, I wouldn’t. I don’t need cheap and low quality federal ammunition, it’s just terrible and can’t be compared with first grade Caldari products. Besides, that civilian transport can be stuffed with armed FDU soldiers who will cause heavy casaulties to your boarding squad. I wouldn’t board that. I’d just stuff it with red hot missiles until it pops.
Would it be legal? Dubious, might be legal, might be not, in majority - depending on the local authority, plus other factors, that aren’t really interesting to discuss in here.
Would it be terrorism? Definitely not - because it was done not to instill fear or other crap, but for direct military purpose, which was to prevent sieged enemy from getting supplies and reinforcements.
Way to bamboozle and derail the conversation. What do you want to discuss exactly, choose precisely, the legitimacy of action, or whether the action was terrorism or not? Or you just want to rant at everything at once?