The FBI defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” It’s fair enough a definition. The key objection one might have to it is the use of the word “unlawful.” Does that mean that the terror tactics engaged in by the likes of Hitler (who was democratically elected), Stalin and Mao weren’t terror because they were authorized by the laws of established governments? The laws of these nation-states were seen as legitimate at the time, even if they’re viewed today only as criminal fantasies given reality on a grand scale.
This point has been made by Arabs in accusing Israel and the U.S. of “state terrorism,” a term which, although lacking an FBI definition, sounds pretty much like undeclared warfare. We then come to the question of whether “warfare” is something only a state can “ethically” conduct.
This may be a good time to examine the nature of the state itself – something which is rarely done. Most people see the state, or the institution of government, as a part of the cosmic firmament – both necessary and eternal, as certain as death and taxes. This, of course, is total nonsense. For many years now, there’s been plenty of scientific bases to believe that even if death can’t be abolished, life and youth will someday be capable of being prolonged for a very long time. Taxes are simply an artifice of the state. And there’s absolutely nothing the state does that entrepreneurs wouldn’t do for a profit – except create wars, pogroms, persecutions, regulations, confiscations and atrocities.
A person’s attitudes towards government offer an excellent insight into his character. Political beliefs reflect how a person thinks men should relate to one another, and give a practical insight into how he views humanity at large, and himself in particular.
There are only two ways people can relate: voluntarily or coercively. Almost everyone, except overt sociopaths, pays at least lip service to the idea of voluntarism. The essence of government, however, is coercion – Mao was quite correct when he said that its power comes out of the barrel of a gun. Government is an entity that claims a monopoly (albeit with some fringe competition) on the use of force within a geographic area.
It’s widely believed that groups have rights unavailable to individuals. But, like many things that are widely accepted, and therefore rarely questioned, the proposition is wrong. Do two people have a right to initiate coercion where one does not? How about 100 people? If the KKK or the IRA had their own discrete territories, would that make them legitimate? Was the free French government-in-exile during World War II less legitimate for lack of a territory? How about the PLO, recently a terrorist organization, which now more-or-less governs a territory?
The point is that it can be a question of parsing words to draw a distinction between a lynch mob, a government, an anti-social group, a terrorist organization or a mafia. I say that because the common element among them is a belief that they have a right to use force to get what they want. The fact that they aren’t all “legal” is unimportant, because, once you leave the ken of common law, the only distinction between the official laws of states, the ad hoc proceedings of a mob, and that of more formal groups like the KKK, boils down to the force they can muster to impose them on others.
I think it’s important to bear these things in mind when thinking out what should be done as a response to the WTC disaster, and against whom.
Related offer:
“International Speculator,” packed with key investment strategies from world-trekking financial guru – available in the WorldNetDaily online store.
