posted on Dec, 30 2008 @ 07:04 PM
I thought I'd post this after the raging debate on the situation in Gaza.
A lot of people who support the Israelis actions seem to justify them based on the fact that Hammas are acting as a terrorist organisation waging a
campaign of terror against the Israelis - and that this is illegal/wrong regardless of whether diplomacy has failed in securing any concessions for
the Palestinians.
This got me thinking about how we tend to use the 'T word' to bag up all kinds of violent actions these days in order to condemn them as wrong, and
illegal, and not inline with what is justified according to our world view.
I don't think anyone would argue that when a small extremist group - independent from state control - acts in it's own interest to try and achieve a
goal that is out of kilter with what the majority actually want - and this results in some kind of violent action usually involving civilian
casualties - this is a terrorist act.
But what about - as we now have in Gaza - when a state controlled group, essentially acting on behalf of a sovereign nation uses tactics we associate
with 'terrorists' - perhaps in place of traditional tactics of war.
I.e. they use suicide bombers rather than air stikes.
You could argue, if you look at Gaza as a state unto it's own, that it is now at war with Israel. So if tomorrow, there were suicide bombings in say,
Jerusalem, against a military target (although with collateral damage) - would this be an act of terrorism?
I would argue that it would be a justified tactical action in a state of war.
Obviously against the Geneva convention, but hey, so are a lot of things that happen in war - and I personally don't think the GC is worth the paper
it is written on anymore.
Likewise, what if - for sake of argument - the US went to war with North Korea, and started air strikes against NK cities. Obviously NK don;t have the
air capacity to strike back directly at US cities, but what if they started using suicide bombers? Or hijacking airliners and blowing them up/ using
them as missiles and flying them into military installations? Is this an act of terrorism? Again, I'd argue that it perhaps isn't.
Likewise, if this were refuted as an act of terrorism, by the same logic couldn't NK argue that the airstrikes were an act of terrorism.
Even now we describe Iraqi insurgents as 'terrorists' when they blow themselves up and plant IEDs - but really' aren't they also in some kind of
state of war. They don't have tanks, and planes - so can't fight the kind of conventional war the west knows, so in many ways - isn't the hole
suicide bombing thing just once force doing all it can to oppose the enemy.
If the US/West can go away and develop and deploy new hardware, tactics, isn't it just the same when people in the middle east do what is essentially
the same?
Iraq is a little blurry as of course, the insurgents don't act on behalf of the state. But in Gaza, Hammas were elected, democratically and with a
VERY large majority. If Hammas were to send in a suicide bomber during the current conflict, and/or fire in their rockets, I can't really see how
this constitutes being labelled as terrorism - it's war, you can't pick and chose what is OK and what is not.
For the sake of example (I'm not a believer myself) - if Aliens went to war with us one day - would we also expect them to abide by the Geneva
convention even though they had no part in it's design and have never agreed to it? If I'm correct, neither did the Palestinians!