You’re correct, but states usually have a monopoly on violence, and state sanctioned terrorism is rarely called such. If you’re using violence and fear to achieve a political goal, that’s terrorism. Every state employs it to some extent. (Usually not this obviously though.)
I’m of the view that there’d be more productive discussions if we collectively started to use the word “terrorism” in a more nuanced way that allowed for the possibility that not all terrorism is necessarily morally bad.
What got me started thinking this was that there is a character in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 who is open about the fact that she used to be a terrorist — except this was in the context of resisting a brutal occupation of her planet. I have recently been rewatching the show, and it’s interesting to see how the narrative frames this as an overall morally good thing whilst also reckoning with the aspects of the resistance that were morally bad. Makes me wistful for that kind of nuance in real world discussions of violent resistance.
It might also make it easier to vehemently condemn senseless acts of state sanctioned terrorism such as this bombing. Though based on the long history of interactional inaction towards multiple genocides, that probably wouldn’t make much difference.
Yep, I agree. The state gets to call anything they want terrorism (even when it isn’t) and nothing they do is called terrorism. It’s just a cudgel they can use to suppress dissent. We need to point out when they do terrorism, and also point to where terrorism has been used to do good, so they lose this tool that let’s them do anything they want.
You’re correct, but states usually have a monopoly on violence, and state sanctioned terrorism is rarely called such. If you’re using violence and fear to achieve a political goal, that’s terrorism. Every state employs it to some extent. (Usually not this obviously though.)
I’m of the view that there’d be more productive discussions if we collectively started to use the word “terrorism” in a more nuanced way that allowed for the possibility that not all terrorism is necessarily morally bad.
What got me started thinking this was that there is a character in Star Trek: Deep Space 9 who is open about the fact that she used to be a terrorist — except this was in the context of resisting a brutal occupation of her planet. I have recently been rewatching the show, and it’s interesting to see how the narrative frames this as an overall morally good thing whilst also reckoning with the aspects of the resistance that were morally bad. Makes me wistful for that kind of nuance in real world discussions of violent resistance.
It might also make it easier to vehemently condemn senseless acts of state sanctioned terrorism such as this bombing. Though based on the long history of interactional inaction towards multiple genocides, that probably wouldn’t make much difference.
Yep, I agree. The state gets to call anything they want terrorism (even when it isn’t) and nothing they do is called terrorism. It’s just a cudgel they can use to suppress dissent. We need to point out when they do terrorism, and also point to where terrorism has been used to do good, so they lose this tool that let’s them do anything they want.