1. Can states commit terrorism? How might the geographies of state terror be different from nonstate terror?

Please discuss
with reference to concrete examples in addition to discourse analysis.

This text will argue that the question whether state terrorism actually exists can actually be
considered an oxymoron, as terrorism in the modern sense of the term originated from the state
apparatus as a repressive mechanism of the Jacobites in France.
It will further this claim with historical examples throughout the 20 th century and it will aim to
classify the different types of state terrorism, from overtly admitted examples by the orthodox
terrorist studies community such as the terrorism committed by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union
to that more absent from the mainstream studies such as the false flag attacks carried out in the
second half of the 20th century by Western powers.
First of all, before delving into state terrorism, I shall confront the issue of defining what
terrorism is.
The reader shall bear in mind as Jackson et al. (2011) remind us that much orthodox terrorism
research asumes that terrorism exists as an ontologically stable, identifiable phenomenon which can
be understood and studied objectively and scientifically, and without any obvious political bias.
It can be useful to look at the definition of two agencies spearheading the so-called War on
Terror:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or propety in furtherance of
political or social objectives. (FBI)
Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by
subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience (US
Department of State)
The definitions, in spite of being broad reveal interesting facts. If violence has been sactioned by the
pertinent authorities in the first case or if it is simply commited by a State in the second case, shall
we refuse to call it terrorism?
It might seem logical that these agencies rule out the State as a possible perpetrator of terrorism as
both of them are part of a state.
But what about the academia? Haven't they provided a bias-free, critical review of terrorism all the
way? The answer, unfortunately, is that by and large, that has not been the case.
Most of the mainstream or orthodox terrorism research that has been done in the last four decades
has been subject to severe criticism as being nothing but counterinsurgency masquerading as
political science (Jackson et al. 2011).
In fact, terrorism experts are perceived as an epistemic community, i. e. A network of specialists
with a common world view about cause and effect relationships which relate to their domain of
expertise, and common political values about the type of policies to which they should be applied
(Jackson et al., 2011).
Their position in state-funded institutes, think tanks as well as their usual support to official
counter-terrorism agendas renders the Gramscian term organic intellectuals appropriate to apply

to them in this case. Some have used the term embedded intellectuals reminiscent of embedded
journalism (Burnett and Whyte 2005)
We can conclude by asserting that orthodox terrorism scholars have traditionally used an actorbased definition of terrorism, refusing to describe it as a strategy of political violence which any
actor can deploy. (Jackson et al. 2011)
.
Does state terrorism exist?

The need to ask (and answer) is a sign that the the terrorism studies
realm is extremely politicised. A few f+
@@