The term call bombing typically refers to terrorist bombings for which the perpetrator has given certain advance warning about the imminent attack, either to the police and other public officials, or the news media.
Contents
In some cases, the term may be used to refer to military operations (attacks) against particular locations in which there is a likelihood or possibility of civilian casualties, as a way to mitigate potential excess harm. But in other cases (such as in the Omagh bombing), the advance "warning" is not a warning designed to minimize damage, but a false flag operation designed to maximize damage and death.
Perpetrators of call bomb attacks may, at the time, feel quite justified in perpetrating them. But most if not all such attacks are all but universally denounced, with the exception of individuals who may sympathize with the particular cause associated with such attacks and their pepetrators.
Concepts
The concept of the "call bomb" may appear to indicate that the bomber has some degree of conscience or moral reasoning, such that they make "efforts" to eliminate or minimize casualties. But such judgments depend on the outcome —for bombings where there is no loss of human life, and such loss of life may be attributed to the advance warning, this concept may find certain acceptance. The perpetrators may consider themselves justified, regardless of whether there is a loss of human life or not, because the attack was reported, as well as due to the claimed ideological and political correctness of the mission itself.
But bombings in which human beings have been killed or maimed are often called mass murder, and both of the above concepts —that the warning indicates conscience, or that it be a rationalization for the attack —are typically rejected. The moral and legal concepts that criminalize the use of weapons of mass destruction outweighs concepts which give justification to the perpetrators. The usage of weapons of mass destruction by non-state actors for their own particular political purposes tends to belie the concept of exercising moral, and conscienscious discrimination. Even when such acts are conducted by "official" agents such as a military, militia, or locally supported militants, attacks which result in the loss of human life (particularly civilians) are often considered to be unjustified (cf. laws of war, state terrorism).