Wait a second. Isn't there a distinction between guerrillas and terrorists, even though there can be a family resemblance between them in tactics used by them? The rule of thumb, it seems to me, is that guerrillas are largely supported by masses -- if not all -- of local populations, morally and materially, whereas terrorists aren't, lacking in political legitimacy in the eyes of the very people in whose interest terrorists claim to act. Anti-colonial combatants -- i.e., guerrillas -- have rights protected by the Geneva Convention of 1948 and relevant UN resolutions, but terrorists are merely criminals.
To apprehend terrorists, the government can use normal police procedures, even if policing has to be at times militarized (and today's policing often is, even in times of peace -- but that's another story).
To suppress guerrillas, the government have to employ the armed forces in a counter-insurgency campaign, resorting to attacks on the population who provide support (food, shelter, information, etc.) to guerrillas or are suspected of doing so: e.g., the creation of "strategic hamlets."
I doubt that Kashmiris are supporting Al Qaeda in a way, for instance, masses of Algerians supported FLN. Hence, I believe that policing, rather than a counter-insurgency campaign, is what is called for. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>