The true meaning of 'state-sponsored terrorism'

“Baroness Warsi (the first Muslim in the British cabinet) will say terror offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam.

But she will also urge Muslim communities to be clearer about their rejection of those who resort to violent acts.

"Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law," she will say.” - bbc

It’s quite a difficult situation(for the empathetic) isn’t it.

People might baulk at the close to half a million child deaths in Iraq arising out of u.s. embargoes in the past, but are rightfully against ‘terror’ responses to it. But why aren’t people against a ‘terror’ response to the 119 attacks on the Twin Towers? This whole ‘terror’ terminology blurs our empathetic appreciation of this whole situation. It’s justifiable violence when we, the nation-state, like the u.s. or the u.k do it, but ‘terror’ when transnational bodies, like Al Qaeda, do it. I

It’s quite a difficult situation(for the empathetic) isn’t it. I may be against Sinhalese discrimination against Tamils in Ceylon (i don’t recognise the term ‘Sri Lanka’ as the latter is supposed to celebrate and validate Ceylon’s independence from British colonial oppressors, but continues this oppression against Tamils.); I may be against Israeli discrimination against Palestinians; I may be against the u.s. embargoes that killed off half a million Iraqi children; but i’m also against the violence of ‘terrorists’.

So where does that leave me? I can’t do anything about it. I can’t support the violence of ‘terrorists’, but i’m against that which has pissed the ‘terrorists’ off as well. So what can i do then? Bugger all.

But that’s it isn’t it. We are supposed to feel powerless. We are given a clear choice of minding our own business or strapping bombs to ourselves or supporting those whom are inclined to do so. And it is this that disempowers us. If the solution to a problem - suicide bombing for instance - is unacceptable, than we are left with minding our own business.

Perhaps a referendum on every significant government action both at home or abroad might be a start. At least then, if we support a government action, and ‘terrorists’ bomb our backyard, they can say that they aren’t whacking ‘innocent civilians’, and we can’t say we didn’t ask for it.
This is the trick played on humanity by the powers-that-be so that opposition to their agenda might be minimised by common morality. But what morality is this? It is a morality that appreciates an empathetic existence within the confines of the state. In other words, violence as a response is ok if someone comes and bombs our skyscrapers, but not if half a million children of another state suffer an untimely death - which u.s. ambassador to the u.n. stated was ‘worth the price’. That’s the ‘greatest nation on earth’ for you. With ‘greatest’ coming from the ability to make a statement like that and term as terrorists those whom come to kick your ass a response. I don’t have time for such hypocritical and arrogant americans. They can kiss my socialist ass.

But the point here is implied in the question, ‘are we being deprived of the means to a non-violent but viable response to an atrocity so that if there is any response, it is going to be an unacceptable violent one, thus giving us the choice of a violent and unacceptable response or no response at all?’

Read the question carefully, a few times, and think about it. And then, you may discover that terrorism is itself a means by which the powers-that-be depend on to silence the masses.
If you didn't get it, i’ll spell it out - i don’t support terrorism, state-initiated or otherwise. Rather, we have to bring about a non-violent and viable means by which we might respond to violence, state-initiated or otherwise, that will disable the wicked agenda, or means by which wicked agenda is responded to, by the state or otherwise. Without which, we are left with a choice of unacceptable violence, or doing nothing - both of which is unacceptable.

In truth, when we don't 'sponsor' a better alternative', and especially when we have the power to do so, we are in effect sponsoring a worse one.
Perhaps a referendum on every significant government action both at home or abroad might be a great start. At least then, if we support a government action, and ‘terrorists’ bomb our backyard, they can say that they aren’t whacking ‘innocent civilians’, and we can’t say we didn’t ask for it. I doubt most Americans, however ignorant, self-absorbed, and juvenile i might believe them to be, would have voted in favour of the u.s. embargoes that killed off half a million Iraqi children, amongst others. Hell, if we were to have such referendums, people across the globe might really start talking and listening to each other so that they might make the right decisions at the referendum polls.

But in the absence of such referendums, we can say that 'terrorism' as the only means by which a state's action might be responded to tends to serve the interests of the state as the people are left with, as stated, the choice of unacceptable violence or non-action. Without the said referendum, we could say that the terrorisms of Al Qaeda, etc, is state-sponsored by the u.s., amongst others. You could say that the u.s. want terrorism to exist and serve as the only means by which their actions might be addressed so that their actions might not be addressed at all since terrorism is unacceptable. In truth, when we don't 'sponsor' a better alternative', and especially when we have the power to do so, we are in effect sponsoring a worse one.


ed