The Roots of Terrorism and US Foreign Policy

[SOS2008]

As always the question of definition arises, and as always the point must be made that individuals, groups, and states can commit acts of terrorism:

State terrorism is a controversial concept that is without a clear definition (see below). Depending on definition it can include acts of violence or repressions perpetrated by a national government or its proxy. Whether a particular act is described as "terrorism" may depend on whether the speaker considers the action justified or necessary, or whether it is carried out as part of an armed conflict. It may also depend on whether the speaker supports the government in question.

State terrorism, where it is consdered to apply, may be directed at the state's own population or at others. It may be carried out by the state's own forces (such as army or police) or other organisations, where it is more usually called state sponsored terrorism.

Care should be taken to separate out state terrorism from acts of violence carried out by government agents but not as part of a government policy. A murder carried out by a policeman, for example, is not state terrorism unless the government sanctioned the action. There is considerable debate over whether acts carried out within the laws of war may be considered terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism

Terrorism is disturbing no matter who practices it or instigates it. And to properly address the matter, one must look at the root causes, no? It's not showing sympathy toward terrorism to do so, and throwing stones from a glass house isn't likely to get good results.

 

[Smurf]

This thread, like the dozens of others we've had on the subject, presupposes that terrorism is an acceptable response. That's why you missed my point, Smurf. Quite frankly, its disturbing.

I don't think terrorism is "acceptable". What you find disturbing is that I don't think it's any worse than other kinds of violence, even that by American Forces.