I don't see much difference between what you've said and what I've said.
Uhm, well I guess I do. You linked terrorism to the nature of the actor. I linked it to motivation of the actor.
When a political objective is desired, and there is no credible threat to one's security (in other words livelihood), yet one decides to use violence to change opinion to one's favor, that is terrorism no matter who the actor is. In a way it is almost by definition, as one is using fear in place of other valid alteratives.
When an entity is actually threatened, regardless of the political stances, then it engages in warfare to overcome its adversary. Depending on the way the war is conducted it can be moral or immoral. Depending of the nature of the units involved it is asymmetric or military.
it is nearly impossible to make absolute judgements about motive and threat.
Why? It seems perfectly reasonable that we can objectively determine if the goal is purely political ambition, versus safety/health of one's constituents. What do you feel would stand in the way?
Did Japan have reason to believe prior to attacking Pearl Harbor that the US posed a credible threat?
No. I don't even see how this is a credible example of a problem to define. The attack they launched had nothing to do with Japanese safety, unless you are counting protecting their regional ambitions?
I said, the conflicts between Nation States and NGOs could be harder to identify.
But why? I see according to your nomenclature it would be, but contra did have a point that it could all be defined as types of warfare, and mine makes it clear based on their motives. Kind of a combo between yours and contras position.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2