Terrorism can be justified

I do not understand my opponent's rebuttal. JWT clearly establishes a combatant/non-combatant distinction in the way I have presented it. A quick look at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy should be enough to prove my presentation of the combatant/non-combatant distinction is completely accurate. From the SEP: "Soldiers are only entitled to use their (non-prohibited) weapons to target those who are, in Walzer's words, 'engaged in harm.' Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets." [1] From the IEP: "In joining an army the individual is said to renounce his or her rights not to be targeted in war – the bearing of arms takes a person into an alternative moral realm in which killing is the expectation and possible norm: it is world removed from civilian structures and historically has evolved rites of passage and exit that underline the alteration in status for cadets and veterans." [2] The introduction of these quotes should not be considered a new argument, as the ideas were already presented in R2 and R3. The reason I provide these quotes is to counter my opponent's claim that the distinction is not relevant to JWT (it obviously is, as these quotes prove). The burden is on my opponent to prove an alternate philosophical justification for the combatant/non-combatant distinction, but my opponent has offered none. I'm not really sure what's left of my opponent's argument, as the combatant/non-combatant distinction has been upheld. 1) My opponent claims terrorism is justified in the following case: when a large nation X attacks a smaller nation Y, the smaller nation Y is justified in killing the civilians of nation X. I don't see why terrorism would be justified in this case. To put this in more concrete terms, this is equivalent to the war between the United States and Iraq. I don't see why Iraq would be justified (in that war) to kill U.S. civilians. 2) There is never a reason to kill civilians because it is ALWAYS possible to win a war without targeting civilians. In other words, there is never a reason to target civilians because the only thing necessary to end a war is the destruction of the enemy's military. Therefore, there is no reason to deliberately target civilians. 3) The fact that the government does not kill citizens who finance hit men completely destroys my opponent's analogy between hit men and soldiers. The government has to provide a fair trial for citizens who finance hit men, and even then, it is not guaranteed that conviction will lead to the death penalty. In other words, they retain their right to life unless it can proven that they do not deserve it. This is always done on a one-by-one basis in a court of law. Terrorism kills civilians without due process, as it denies their right to life as well as their right to a fair trial. It is therefore unjustifiable. 4) I don't understand my opponent's argument about civic representation. It negates the freedom of speech because it says people who voice their opinion (when those opinions become represented by the state) are responsible for the State's actions. This makes no sense. If the State represents the "will of the people," shouldn't the entirety of Nazi Germany have been killed? I don't get it. Think about it this way: if a single citizen protests the war, does that mean the government is allowed to kill them because they are inhibiting the war? The principle behind my opponent's argument is the following: citizens should NEVER support war, because if they do, they become legitimate targets. This is ridiculous, as it limits the freedom of speech, as citizens are forced to give up their right to life just for supporting war. It's nonsense. Why should someone be forced to give up their right to life just because they express an opinion to support war? I think I should win this debate on the basis of the combatant/non-combatant distinction, which my opponent has not disproven. I honestly don't see the strength in any of my opponent's arguments. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...