States As Terrorists Argument Analysis

Terrorism is normally defined as an intentionally violent act or threat of a violent act perpetrated by non-state actors for religious, political, economic, or social motives against noncombatants. The definition of terrorism, at it’s most basic form, always seems to include violence, tactics, and targets. Each department or organization has a different definition of terrorism. However, almost all definitions of terrorism exclude the state as actors in terrorism. Stohl believes that this is an oversight from a political perspective. According to him, states can be terrorists. He frames his argument by redefining states as having the monopoly on “legitimate violence”. He also makes an argument by throwing out terms like clandestine state terrorism, state sponsored …show more content…
Scholars find it difficult to label states as terrorists for various reasons. As a counter to Stohl’s argument, I believe states cannot be terrorists based on three vital factors. First, states cannot be labeled as terrorist because states actions are often defined by other forms of political violence. Governmental acts of political violence against noncombatants are often described as repression (especially violating human rights) or genocide. Stohl fails to provide examples of state terrorism outside of these two forms of political violence. He instead associates state repression, genocide, politicide, and violation of human rights with state terrorism. Even if a government uses terrorist tactics, like bombs its citizens, international it is recognized as the state repressing it people. Also, the motive usually reflects repressing of a certain “rebel” group or regaining control over the population. Next, states’ rarely use tactics in the same manner as terrorists unless they are an illegitimate or unstable government. If a state is using terrorist tactics and disrespecting physical integrity rights they are most likely not a legitimate