6 ms·
It's not erroneous, terms evolve. There's no formal definition of terrorism, so we're just talking about how it's used in common conversation and media. Maybe i
by burkaman 9y ago
It's not erroneous, terms evolve. There's no formal definition of terrorism, so we're just talking about how it's used in common conversation and media. Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. When a government does it it's just modern warfare.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Maybe it's just me, but in modern usage I've only ever seen references to non-governmental terrorism and "state sponsored terrorism", which is different than a direct government action. State-sponsored terrorism is broader than, but includes, direct government action. Direct actions by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps’ Quds Force are often described as “state sponsored terrorism”.
- burkaman 9y agoOk, that's a good example. I agree that an article like you're describe would be inconsistent, and further dilutes the modern meaning of terrorism.
- theptip 9y agoI think the more nuanced point would be "If _our_ government directly does it, it's not called terrorism." The US government's support for anti-government organizations in the Middle East (e.g. in Syria, Libya, Sudan, etc) is characterized as terrorism by the Iranian government, and many others (Russia, etc). (I'm not passing any judgement on the moral equivalency of these positions, just pointing out the fuzziness of the linguistics).