 State Terrorism is a unique and a different phenomena from a non-state terrorism. State TerrorismThe term State-terrorism refers to acts of terror in which a state 

State Terrorism is a unique and a different phenomena from a non-state terrorism. 

The term State-terrorism refers to acts of terror in which a state conducts or take any action against other state or its citizens. This concept of terrorism is far more devastating that non-state terrorism, as state terrorism has claimed more lives than terrorism which is directed against the state. State-terrorism are of two types, first is the one which takes place against perceived enemies of a state outside that state borders which usually ends up in a costly retaliation for the state. For instance, the discotheque La-Belle bombing which happened in April 1986 in Berlin which was planned by Libya in which one Turkish citizen and two US citizens lost their lives which was retaliated massively by the US under the operation El Dorado Canyon.

The other would be the act of terror which is initiated against special target groups – prominent or outspoken dissidents living abroad, although this type of terror has occurred more frequently as during the 1980s and 1990s in which action of agents from Khomeini’s Iran killed more than 120 Iranian dissidents.

State Sponsored Terrorism is a distinct concept from the concept discussed above. In state sponsored terrorism it is not the state that commit the violent acts but they allow others to do so as they have similar objectives to those of the state sponsoring them. This usually involves all type of assistance whether it be technical, financial or logistical by a state to terror organization. State usually prefer this option as this is an easy way for the states to wage a war against their enemy through a proxy. There are several factors for a state to sponsor terrorism as these may include a shared ideology where both the state and the terrorist organization want to target the same person. For example, Israel supports various types of terror groups that tend to conduct attacks in the Palestinian territory. States also support state sponsored terrorism which tends to include goals such as strategic goals through which state tends to weaken the security of the other state through the attacks conducted by the terror organization, for example Iran has been providing funding to organizations such as Hezbollah to rival and destabilize Israel.

It is usually the motivation such as ideology gains or to destabilize the immediate neighboring countries to achieve a strategic or tactical advantage which are used to enhance domestic support. There are mostly two ways through which a state supports a terrorist organization either passively or actively. In the passive support, the states usually turn a blind eye to the operations conducted by the terror organizations. In Passive support many countries even allow to offer the terror organization a safe haven and also allow them to establish training camps on its territory, State also allows the terrorist organization to engage in activities such as money laundering, smuggling of weapons and drugs. For example, Saudi Arabia had turned a blind eye to many activities of many private organizations which used to operate in its land which used to fund many terror organizations one of the prime examples would be Al Qaeda who used to operate in Saudi, however Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to the fundraising activities of the private organizations as they tend to enhance their own image in the Islamist foreign policy and in the Islamic world. Thus, Saudi choose to ignore the supporters of Al-Qaeda as long as they don’t harm the citizens of Saudi. If we’ll talk about active support, a state actively supporting a terrorist organization in which the state is usually helping the terror organization by not just letting them rally troops or run any illicit activities such as trafficking but also supporting them actively and diplomatically by defending their action in places such as the UN. A state actively supporting terror group helps them in their operations. The best example for a state in active support would be Pakistan as Pakistan has been actively supporting Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Taliban and insurgency in Kashmir and North-East India by supporting various other organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba. Another example could be of US and NATO supporting terrorism in Yugoslavia by killing hundreds of civilians for their gain.

The perspective of one state of another state funding terrorism varies and is subjective. For example, for one state, another state funding terrorism might constitute terrorism or liberation fight. In its 'Country Reports on Terrorism,' for example, the United States designates North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Cuba as state sponsors of terrorism, whereas countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others that have openly supported terrorist organizations are not on the list of terrorist organiszations of the United States. According to Al Gore, this has also allowed Saudi Arabia to openly sponsor terrorism, and the United States' ignorance of it provides a handy cover for the nation in which Saudi carries out attacks while the United States ignores the fact.

Another aspect of state-sponsored terrorism is the portrayal of Western democracies as innocent targets and victims of terrorism, according to Hermann and O'Sullivan. According to this, the West only responds to the deployment of terrorist forces to protect democratic governments against authoritarian opponents, rather than foment terrorism itself. Nonetheless, multiple cases from US history show that US personnel have actively participated in the sponsorship of terrorism. During the Cold War, for example, the Reagan Doctrine passively and covertly supported guerrilla groups in Eastern bloc nations such as Nicaragua, Vietnam, Korea, and Cuba. In each of the cases, the United States projected its form of activity as protecting democratic ideals and praised its people as "freedom fighters," while the other countries' activities were denounced as "terrorism" and their people as "terrorists," revealing the democratic countries' double standards.

Numerous human rights atrocities, including as rape, torture, and executions, have been performed by US troops, highlighting these countries' contradictory positions, which are portrayed as rational and logical. Similarly, when the West, led by President Bush, gave the go-ahead to capture and depose Saddam Hussein's regime, they adopted terrorism as their foreign policy and advocated for the destruction of terrorism from the Iraqi regime, which they claimed was legitimate, necessary, and based on humanitarian need, while labelling them as terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. The CIA has also sponsored Mujahideen, the Islamic zealots in Afghanistan who subsequently carried out assaults in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1980s and produced one of the most infamous terrorists, Osama Bin Laden, who carried out one of the most serious attacks in the United States, the 9/11 attack. In truth, the United States is the sole country that utilized weapons of mass devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, committing one of history's most horrific crimes.

Not only the United States, but the whole Western world, has long embraced terrorism as a means of achieving geopolitical goals. During the World Wars, for example, Britain relentlessly attacked German towns, killing thousands of people and damaging property worth millions of dollars. It is ironic that Western countries that present themselves as the "protectors of the world" and criticize other countries for funding terrorism are the same powers that promote terrorism in their foreign policy and carry out massive bombs, killing people and destroying property. Consequently, terrorism, particularly post-World War II, has not been perpetuated by Arabic names but has been carried out, directly or indirectly, by democratic and Western governments, particularly the United States, resulting in the loss of more lives than terrorism by non-state actors.

In reality, an examination of the attacks carried out by the United States reveals that these acts of terror were not even necessary. The US invasion of Yugoslavia revealed that all ethnic cleansing actions by Serbs in Kosovo occurred after the American invasion, demonstrating the futility of the nation's invasion. This demonstrates the hypocrisy of democratic countries in which terrorism directed against its adversaries is justified but terrorism aimed against America is not.

Furthermore, the mainstream media and scholarly papers on terrorism have completely overlooked the West's double standard and idea. According to Herman/O'Sullivan, this is mostly due to the conviction of the conventional approach to terrorism, which promotes that the West is only a victim of terrorism while the other is associated with the adversary. In 1998, even soloman stated that when terrorists attack, they are terrifying. When the West strikes, they respond, and when they retaliate, they terrorize even more, and when the West attacks again, they retaliate even more.

This strategy may also be utilized by other governments who want to portray themselves as "defend the nation" through their "freedom warriors" and look pious. This tool can thus be employed by several countries, potentially resulting in the loss of many lives and the destruction of property worth millions of dollars. Although it might seem to dissuade any country from supporting a terrorist organization, however if we’ll take a look at Pakistan the country has been an active supporter of terrorism and it was even supported by US, however later Pakistan was convinced to abandon the terrorist group which it used to support, so this also reflects another debate of the reasons of supporting terrorist organizations actively and then dissuading terrorism.

State Terrorism is a form of terror which is conducted against the state or the citizens of the state whereas the state sponsored terrorism refers to a state conducting terrorism not by themselves but through proxies. States fund terrorism for a variety of reasons, including the promotion of a common ideology, domestic support, and geopolitical benefit. Terrorism is actively and passively supported by states. Many disputes show how one government's assistance for terrorism in another one is seen differently by various countries. Some see it as terrorism, while others see it as a liberation fight. Furthermore, democratic countries present themselves as innocent and victims of terror, but their hypocrisy and double standards are revealed when they carry out terror in the name of necessity, humanitarian need, and to protect democratic ideals for their own geopolitical, ideological, and domestic needs. Furthermore, an examination of the West's attacks reveals that these acts of terror were not even required. Furthermore, the West's duplicity is not exposed by mainstream media or scholarly journals, allowing these countries to continue carrying out terrorist attacks for their own advantage. This strategy can and is adopted by a number of different countries for their objectives.

It may be argued that all mainstream media must recognise this duplicity, and all acts of terror must be demonised and portrayed only as acts of terror.

State terrorism and the difference it has from state-sponsored terrorism.

0 Comments