Tuesday, May 25, 2010
State Sponsored Terrorism
The majority of countries in the Middle East oppose terrorism and support anti-terrorism efforts. However some officials in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan privately fund Islamic terrorists. While many countries oppose terrorism, is it possible that the governments are the ones committing the acts of terror? Iraq has committed atrocities against the Kurds, Iran has killed thousands by their secret police and other agencies, and Israelis have violated the human rights of the Palestinians. These atrocities have been committed by the governments in theses countries. At what point does state sponsored terrorism just become plain state terrorism? What do you think distinguishes the two?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Under normal circumstances i would presume the differences would be whether the money comes from taxation, or from private sources. If it comes from private sources well then that is in a respect the same as us funding a political party here just much more violent. But if it comes from taxation aka state sponsored that is down right wrong..
ReplyDeleteI believe that state sponsored and state terrorism are distinguished, like devon said, by how much the people's money is being used to support the terrorists. If the government is collecting money from people, ie taxes, to support terrorists, then the terrorism is technically a part of the government. If the government is privately funding them from their own money, it would simply be state sponsored terrorism.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Abby and Devon, they two are distinguished by where the money comes from to fund the operations. Either scenario, however, is really horrific. It's hard to imagine that we live in a world where situations like this occur within corrupt governments everyday at the peoples expense.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely the money (as pointed out by everyone else) that distinguishes between the two. However, the government might be taking the tax money and tossin' that money over to the terroists without the support of the citizens, which would be a problemo. At that point, I think that it might still be considered state-sponsered terrorism, and not state-terrorism, which would require for all of the citizens to be fully for funding the terrists in their horrible acts.
ReplyDeleteIn addition to the money, I think that the settling point comes with who is specifically committing the act. If a terrorist organization is committing the act then it is state sponsored, and if the government is doing things directly then its state terrorism. Simple as that?
ReplyDeleteI believe state sponsered terrorism is more when a country such as Iran funds an organization such as Hezbollah, on the surface they are mearly supporting the cause. If a state were actually to employ terrorists then it would be state terrorism. Not to say they either are better, but one is more indirect.
ReplyDeleteLast time I checked, terrorism = terrorism, but that slippery snake John Woo has messed around with everything.
ReplyDeleteIf a country uses a spear to do its dirty work, and then for some reason the spear goes rogue, its still a spear to be feared.
It's like you picked these colors specifically to burn your words into my retinas. Well done.
ReplyDeleteThis is like terrorism in that you are using drastic measures to get people to listen to you. However, when you use a middleman, then it's just state-sponsored terrorism, not terrorism, which sounds so much more acceptable. Like they're sponsoring them in the Terror Olympics or somehting.
I would have to agree with Aliza, that state-sponsored terrorism requires a middle man while state-funded terrorism does not. Terrorizing citizens with the governing power's army is one way of getting people to pay attention, but working with terror organizations is entirely different. State-sponsored terrorism means that nations are using "political action committees" to maintain control, while most other nations use PAC's for funding. Why fund a PAC when a PAC can fund you?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, there isnt much of a difference. If i gave someone a gun, and that person killed someone, wouldnt i be an accomplice of murder? I would be just as guilty as the person who pulled the trigger. The problem with middle eastern countries is its death grip on most of the world because of oil. If the whole world went green tomorrow, no one would allow them to do what they do.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the difference lies in where the money to sponsor the terrorism comes from. If the citizens of the country have to pay taxes or something to operate this terrorism, then it’s state terrorism. If it is privately funded by investors who may happen to work for the government, then it’s state sponsored.
ReplyDeleteWell as we saw in today's summit, you can accuse just about any country in the world of State Sponsored Terrorism. The question really is, what is terrorism? To Great Britain, the American revolutionaries were terrorists, but to us they're patriots.
ReplyDeleteCountries will always rely upon a select few to do their dirty work, and the Middle East is no exception.