Y'know, you'd probably be a lot less angry about life if you didn't base so many of your beliefs on what you *know* certain people would do in certain situations, despite those situations never happening, or what you *know* certain people secretly desire, despite their never admitting it to openly calling for it. That's reasonable. For the sake of discussion, would you consider an embassy to be a "civilian target?"
... a lot less catchy than 'What is love...' Baby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more.... Yes, you now have that song in your head. You're welcome.
In general, yes. Embassies are not normally military hardpoints. There are exceptions, of course . . . the US Embassy in Kabul is pretty much a fortress . . . but by and large, yeah, they're "civilian targets".
Fair enough. Follow up question: Do you believe there's a relevant distinction between "civilian" and "government" targets? For example, the IRS might not be driving tanks or shooting at the enemy, but they're part of the larger apparatus that helps fund the military actions. So are the congressmen that vote to authorize military action and pass funding bills for the related expenditures.
Ehhh, from the perspective of the terrorist discussion, probably not. Remember, "government" does not mean just the national government. It includes any smaller bits, like state, city, or county in the US. Hitting a non-military government target isn't much different than hitting a shopping district IMHO.
Okay. I could see it both ways, but I'm mostly thinking about the Federal government. That said, we did have a situation in Alberta a few years back where "eco-terrorists" were bombing pipelines and related unmanned infrastructure, over what they believed was the oil and gas companies activities damaging their farmland and the health of their people. In that context, and after they'd tried resolving the issue both with the companies and the government, I'd say their targets were "legitimate."
