|
Aswad -> RE: Does it bother anyone else the Boston terrorist is 19? (4/23/2013 3:31:52 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Sorry Aswad, but I feel I must take issue with this assertion in your otherwise incisive analysis. The main reason is that this assertion eliminates State terrorism from the discussion.
I'm providing a description of current colloquial use of the term terrorism, which has undergone a semantic shift in the public sphere (and thus also political discourse) into a meaning closer to underdog. We probably could lump in state terrorism with conventional terrorism, if we define it in terms of the effect on the target population, but we would be doing ourselves a disfavor if we're trying to be rigorous, as there are much better terms available already: oppression, persecution, genocide, tyranny, state violence, illegal warfare, etc. The meanings of words are defined by their use, so state terrorism is best to describe with words that won't be misunderstood.
Besides, the deeper point I'm making is, might makes right in international politics, no matter how much lip service we pay to nobler ideals. Sad, but true. You're at parity, or not; strong, or weak; aggressor, or defender. State terrorism fits a pattern of strong aggressor, weak defender, in an attack-optional situation. What is called terrorism in current discourse, however, fits a pattern of weak aggressor, strong defender, usually in a situation where attack is not perceived as being optional. Internationally, and in the media, the moral high ground belongs to the victor, subsidiarily to the strong, a reversion to premodern concepts of morality, with contempt for weakness, regardless of ethical status and conduct.
As the song goes... what a wonderful world.
quote:
Wearing the uniform of a State, acting under orders in a recognised National Army, does not entitle one to automatic exemption from the terrorist label.
Correction: it doesn't change the nature of what one is doing, but may certainly change the label. The exemption from the usual label is never automatic, though. It's usually accomplished through substantial effort and weight of history, what we may collectively call propaganda or culture centricism or any other label we care to slap on the thing that shapes the pool so we can perform that popular mental shell game wherein matters such as accountability and morality never quite seem to be under any of the shells.
We may not like it (I certainly don't), but we should acknowledge the realities of how it works.
quote:
I feel it is important to recognise this aspect of terrorism as it is often the main cause of violent resistance itself.
All terrorism is counterterrorism or insanity, I suspect. Since states by definition are sociopaths, that pans out nicely.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
