Quote by SekiRyuuour
firebombings of tokyo, dresden, and other cities, including the dropping of nuclear weapons, technically are
terrorism--we were inflicting terror on the citizens of that nation in order to scare the locals enough to demand their
government to surrender
Here I have to disagree. I do not believe that the label of terrorism can --
or should -- be applied to sovereign states, because there exists a subset of international law that is the law of war.
At least in theory, governments are constrained by international law, as LigerZSchneider noted. International law ranges
from treaties down to tacit acknowledgement of the extant norms in the international system, and international law, as
recognized by Hugo Grotius and subsequently codified in documents such as the Geneva conventions outline the rights and
responsibilities of countries in times of war.
Governments therefore are constrained in what they can or cannot do during times of war by international law and may
suffer consequences for violations of international law. This is not the case with terrorists. What, then, are
terrorists, and what constitutes terrorist activities?
I believe a terrorist action to be an act causing or
threatening tangible harm to an impersonal target with coercive intent to change existing norms that has psychological rammifications that extend beyond the individual target or targets conducted by a non-state organization whose members are not regular
soldiers wearing uniform or other identifying insignia.
Let me explain.
I chose harm rather than violence in my definition because as someone who deals regularly with computer security issues,
I believe in the possibility of cyberterrorism. By "impersonal target" I meant that while a Palestinian
suicide bomber may kill a number of Israeli teenagers when he blows himself up in a busy mall, he has nothing against
the teenagers themselves, but rather uses them as a symbol of a greater target, some set of existing norms that his
action is intended to help change, be it foreign occupation or the dominance of some other ideology. The psychological
rammifications are the root word of the word terrorism, namely the terror or fear propagated by terrorist acts.
The last two elements are particularly important in my mind. First, non-state actors are not bound by international laws
and the laws of war, and nor do they claim to be. Having their actions being carried out by individuals who are not (at
least at the time of their perpetrating terrorist activites) regular soldiers in uniform and insignia not only allows
them to blend in with civilians and therefore make their actions seem both more cowardly and more nefarious, but also
takes them outside the dictates of international law (e.g. the Geneva conventions) on the conduct and rights of regular
soldiers. Therefore, just as they do not respect the rights of civilians and the rules of conduct in war outlined in
international law, they are not eligible for the protections afforded regular soldiers in that self-same body of
international law.
Does that make sense? This is something I am jotting down hastily without much consideration, so if there are aspects of
terrorism that I have not encompassed, please let me know.
s h i n s e n g u m i
Minitokyo Policy, Forum, Review, and Category Maintenance Moderator Emeritus
Do not expect to be applauded when you do the right thing, and do not expect to be
forgiven when you err, but even your enemies will respect commitment, and a conscience at peace is worth a thousand
tainted victories.
