|
Yet another fine question for which I do not have an answer and will again say comes down in part to which side I fall on (again, begin slow, I am referring to an Alex post a few back).
I suppose it comes down to some sort of attempt, as the Geneva convention is, to bring some sort of limitation to barbarism associated with war.
Terrorism does not equal war, though it can be and is a part of it. I suppose I would define terrorism (in the current world environment) as groups without an official tie to a government with an agenda attempting to use fear or death to move closer to the agenda. Not a perfect definition, so examples -
I do not regard the Hamas capture of the Israeli soldier as terrorism. I consider it an act of war, as the soldier was uniformed, certainly a legitimate military target, and Hamas is the government of Palestine (though there are certainly factions within it). I would not regard car bombings staged by Islamic Jihad as an act of war, but as an act of terrorism. They have an agenda to create war in the region for the elimination of Israel.
So....I'm writing as I'm thinking, so I do not consider my position to be well defined as of yet....I suppose I would then say I do not think states are capable in and of themselves of terrorism. They commit acts of war. They can support terrorism by getting groups such as Hezbollah to do their dirty work, as is the case presumably with Iran.
One part of terrorism is that we don't necessarily know who is responsible or where they may be. This is not the case with acts of war. We knew the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and where they were and where to strike them.
Kind of rambling in an unorganized way there and I hope it is somewhat sensible.
|