You're correct on one level Terry and then on another not. There is considerable difference in the modern ability to exercise power by the state and those who oppose the power execised by the state.  In such context it is the state who is strong and those attempt to overthrow it violently who are weak if one considers the weaponry available and the difference.

Weaponry used in many cases by those typically described as terrorists tends to be quite horrifying and creates, as you suggest, terror in the targeted population, because the primary weapons are bombs and most in Western culture are even more horrified by the use of suicide bombers where few have any understanding of the commitment of one who would choose to kill themselves in the process of attacking those in power.

Still in WWII there is ample evidence of Germany, Japan and even the U.S. using suicide as a tactic in a war between states rather than between the a state and those who would terrorize the targeted population. Perhaps in many wars between states, but that is a recent example.   

Worse still, there is no warning provided prior to a bombing and the destruction of those who are killed or wounded in that manner is horrific.  True in what is considered domestic terrorism such as in Oklahoma City. Still we so called
civilized members of states in power,  who claim superiority of the state and the rights of the state, have no compunction against using bombs, though they fall from aircraft where there may be some warning in the sound of their approach, but with far greater devastation and death on the population targeted with little actual ability to identify those on the ground who are killed.

Were some of those who are the victims of the increasing use of air power in
Iraq and Afghanistan, al Qaeda, "insurgents" or innocent civilians. 500 lb or 2,000 pound bombs leave hidous results and we know the regular claim to
"smart" bombs doesn't actually make them "smart."  Today they may be just
considered "hajis," and actually unidentified, but my spouse would tell you there is nothing new in that.  In that SE Asian war he was involved in, only the name was different and if they were dead then they must have been "Charlie, Cong, "slopes" or any of the variety of negative terms used to identify the "enemy."

So can the state to continue to retain power also be guilty of terrorism if one considers the weaponry?  In fact isn't it quite possible the same might be true in the endless warfare between the "terrorist" Palestinians and the state of Israel supported by the U.S. state?

Just rambling and maybe not at all confined to the philosophical of your intent of this thread, but maybe worth consideration?

It's late again for me and having had a busy day, I've not had the opportunity to move on to the other new thread. But as Scarlett said, " Tomorrow is another day and it is my intent, if time allow to go there. 

The Kurds will eventually have a homeland comprising parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq. That is inescapable.

We'll have to wait and see, won't we? 

Maybe, but you cannot forget the Iraqi nor the Iranian Kurds either.

What I mean by "terrorism is generally a tool of the weak" is that given the chance nearly all terrorist organizations would fight "legitimatly". If hamas had tanks and planes then they would use them but they don't so they must use suicide bombings.



There are many examples of terror committed or sponsored by powerfull states. (Hamas, Contra's, Stalin) But the majority of powerfull actors that CAN fight without indiscriminant murder generally do. For the sole reason that it is inefficient in the long run to murder and destroy the population you are trying to control.

If Kudistan and other regions secede, it will become ipso facto an international war, not a civil war.
IMO, I'm not sure that's what they will do.
I would be surprised that they still want more killings. Who knows...

Good 'Onya Bear. That works. 


Kind regards
Terry

Thanks Terry   Where do you think some other groups fit?  Is the, "knowing it when you see it" what we will have to use at the end of the day to define terrorism?

Pleis: There is a difference between good and evil.  Just as there is a difference between men of goodwill working out a problem and some dumbass blowing up a school bus.  Hiroshima was not a terrorist act.  According to my admittedly imperfect definition it was an act of combat between to countries at war.  The Japanese would have been happy to nuke Tacoma, Washington if they had had the capability.  Thankfully, they did not, we did and my father was not killed in operation Olympic as a result of nuking Japan.  Now, if the Red Army Faction had a nuke...  As far as Nazi versus Commie, two wrongs do not make a right.  In principal, the Soviet partisans were trying to liberate their land.  The Nazis were certainly not trying to bring freedom to anyplace they occupied.