Random scenario

[Husar]

Yeah, so we can have more and smaller wars.

[Tribesman]

Historical scenario
I was reading last night about a group in a refugee area who were supplied with enough weapons from outside groups to successfully resist deportation by attacking from rooftops, cellars and attics. In trying to remove them, 20 government soldiers were killed. The government responded with attacks by tanks and artillery, versus the refugees armed with smuggled in pistols, rifles, a few machine guns, grenades and Molotov cocktails. The first attack was repulsed, leaving another 12 government soldiers dead. The soldiers found it very difficult to kill or capture the small battle groups, who would fight, then retreat through a maze of cellars, sewers and other hidden passageways to escape capture, disappearing into the noncombatant areas. Air strikes were ordered, setting apartment buildings from which resistance occurred on fire, in an effort to kill those hiding among the noncombatants (who were almost certainly aware of their presence and may have in fact assisted them.) But of course this is all justified, as a necessary government response to the attacks.
So was the government justified ?

[Somebody Else]

Incidentally - my question was in part inspired by something I heard about a US training exercise. 50 men playing enemy, holed up in an apartment block. Best part of 2000 marines 'died' to take the building. Now, I haven't verified this - but I've had a brush with some FIBUA, and it seems believable.

[Husar]

Historical scenario
I was reading last night about a group in a refugee area who were supplied with enough weapons from outside groups to successfully resist deportation by attacking from rooftops, cellars and attics. In trying to remove them, 20 government soldiers were killed. The government responded with attacks by tanks and artillery, versus the refugees armed with smuggled in pistols, rifles, a few machine guns, grenades and Molotov cocktails. The first attack was repulsed, leaving another 12 government soldiers dead. The soldiers found it very difficult to kill or capture the small battle groups, who would fight, then retreat through a maze of cellars, sewers and other hidden passageways to escape capture, disappearing into the noncombatant areas. Air strikes were ordered, setting apartment buildings from which resistance occurred on fire, in an effort to kill those hiding among the noncombatants (who were almost certainly aware of their presence and may have in fact assisted them.) But of course this is all justified, as a necessary government response to the attacks.
So was the government justified ?

Sounds a lot like what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto.

I think the whole idea of justification is very difficult as well as very individual depending on one´s views.
If you could ask a deer whether it was justified to shoot deer so a hunter can make a living, what might the deer respond?
Usually justification is explained by needs, aims and values of a person or group, but another group has a very different view.
The one who has the losses will almost never say it´s justified, the one who wins will often say. The stronger makes the rules usually. And the stronger also dictates what is justified and what is not, who could oppose his views?