Cheney Admits To Torture!

[Sebrof]

I think that state terrorism, which was more common than the non-state should be incorporated into our understanding of terrorism.

 

Judging by the name, it already has been.

 

S

 

Well yes, but don't you think that current popular perceptions of terrorism tend to be solely related to non-state terrorism? Maybe it is because of the modern growth of this form of terrorism, but I don't think people tend to perceive the state use of violence against the populace as ever being terrorism. It is possible that a reason for this may be that from liberal democratic point of view the state's use of violence is legitimate and the extent of this violence varies, so when such violence is perceived to be excessive we do not immediately use a term that completely delegitimises what the state does naturally. I don't know, maybe I am talking crap.

 

In totallitarian countries, violence by the state against their own people is normally termed repression.

 

In South America, where the US has often been up to nasty tricks, I think the usual word would be destabilisation. I don't think states tend to commit terrorist acts against other civilian populations very much.

 

S

[La_Dolce_Vita]

In totallitarian countries, violence by the state against their own people is normally termed repression.

 

It is, but this is a broad termed that is not limited in its definition to violence.

 

In South America, where the US has often been up to nasty tricks, I think the usual word would be destabilisation. I don't think states tend to commit terrorist acts against other civilian populations very much.

S

 

The usual word might be destabilisation, though if you are talking about what I think you are (e.g. U.S. involvement in Nicaragua) then I would call this terrorism. Destabilisation is too soft a word by far. But what about Saddam's and the Turkish treatment of the Kurds. And I think one of the most pertinent examples might be Israel's attacks on the Palestinians.

 

I do believe the United States to be one of the leading terrorist states, and not just one that sponsors terrorism but one that carries it out. It seems rather ridiculous that it is waging a War On Terror as if it is the innocent and righteous.

And how far removed is low-intensity warfare and coercive diplomacy from terrorism?

[jimbms]

The usual word might be destabilisation, though if you are talking about what I think you are (e.g. U.S. involvement in Nicaragua) then I would call this terrorism. Destabilisation is too soft a word by far. But what about Saddam's and the Turkish treatment of the Kurds. And I think one of the most pertinent examples might be Israel's attacks on the Palestinians.

 

I do believe the United States to be one of the leading terrorist states, and not just one that sponsors terrorism but one that carries it out. It seems rather ridiculous that it is waging a War On Terror as if it is the innocent and righteous.

And how far removed is low-intensity warfare and coercive diplomacy from terrorism?

LDV stop that right now, I cannot have you writing posts I agree with.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

LDV stop that right now, I cannot have you writing posts I agree with.

 

And maybe you are not a windowlicker after all, not that I ever thought you ever were.

 

Some of my views of terrorism are informed by the writings of Noam Chomsky. I think he writes really good critiques of American foreign policy and moral positions of those conducting terrorism and those opposing it.