Words matter

There has been a lot of discussion using words like «war», «terrorism», «war crimes», «human shields» [...] The problem I wish to highlight is that words matter and, when discussing those topics, the vocabulary many of us have has been bent, twisted, and manipulated by various forces for their own benefit.

I’d like you to stop using fungible terms like «war crime», «ethnic cleansing», «collateral damage», etc., and stick strictly to the vocabulary used in International Humanitarian Law (IHL). There’s a simple reason for that: the vocabulary of IHL is extremely clear and deliberately freed of nuance and gray areas.

When does international humanitarian law apply?  
International humanitarian law applies only to armed conflict; it does not cover internal tensions or disturbances such as isolated acts of violence. The law applies only once a conflict has begun, and then equally to all sides regardless of who started the fighting.

This wording is extremely carefully made. There is no reference to aggressor or invader or any of the terms that might indicate who started it. Because who started it is invariably a topic of discussion when someone is trying to minimize their side’s crimes against humanity, i.e.: those noncombatants wouldn't have gotten hurt if we hadn't had to do this awful thing.

When I speak and write about these issues, I try hard, in my words, to stick to simple concepts. There are no «terrorists», or «freedom fighters» and I barely acknowledge the existence of states – there are just combatants and noncombatants and their actions are either legal or they are crimes against humanity. [...] Noncombatants' actions are always legal, because they are not engaging in violence. Combatants' actions are extremely problematic, especially when combatants begin killing noncombatants as a matter of operations – then we're down to arguing whether the death was necessary or justified and that is extremely problematic. -- It's Just Words Marcus Ranum