3 ms·

Back when I was studying IR in Uni, it used to be all about terrorism. In general states will always put a moral spin on terrorists. But terrorism is always th

Back when I was studying IR in Uni, it used to be all about terrorism. In general states will always put a moral spin on terrorists. But terrorism is always the tool of the weaker party. In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. As the state gets to frame the debate. Even now people refer to state violence as state terrorism. I remember some authors arguing that terrorism label is more of a construct for emotional propaganda than anything useful for distinction. Violence is violence. Who we expect or accept to receive that violence is a matter of opinion and perspective.

fjkdlsjflkds 2y ago
> In fact all forms of rebellion can be spun as terrorism. Sure. But not all forms of rebellion (or state violence) are terrorism. If rebels (or the state in question) are focused on attacking and killing enemy combatants, it's not really terrorism, while if they are focusing on indiscriminately targeting civilians, it is. Words have meaning. Not all violence is the same. EDIT: Even in the most violent of contexts (war), humans have collectively agreed that some forms of violence ("war crimes") are less acceptable than others; saying things like "violence is violence" could be seen as support to the "anything goes" approach to war (which I'm sure you don't support).