• Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Im with you ! I know and understand people don’t like to see things this way, but I never saw any good argument as to why this nuance between legal/legitimate and illegal/illegitimate power should be taken into account in theory (other than practical matters, like it would be kinda hard to organize any other way now)

    • n2burns@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      I think the big difference is whether the force follows the rules of war or not. Obviously the CAF has had some violations, but not on an organisational level like the IRGC.

      • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, this is what makes one legal and the other one not. I suppose that in your opinion, being legal and following rules of war makes it better and I would agree, it seems reasonably better. But is it good though ? To my eyes, killing and spreading terror remains bad, legally or not. If we add some other parameter, it may even be worse to do it legally : the scale of destruction is far worse when a violent group is legal (and so financed and supported by whole countries).

        The result of the analysis depends on what parameters you choose : is it legal ? Is it big ? What are the motives ? You can choose what you want, and that’s probably why we (I assume this here) have different opinions. My wonder is : why should we focus mostly or entirely on the legal aspect/parameter when analysing things like violence and power ?

        (If i misunderstood what you said, sorry by advance)