Talk:State terrorism

Missing Incidents?

This article seems very incomplete. The most obvious omission is the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which was State Terrorism by Lybia.

Less obvious, but worth discussing, are state-run assassination programmes in third countries. For example, the Lillehammer Affair (and the Israeli assassination programme in general), the US drone programme in Pakistan and other third nations, etc. - extrajudicial killings in third countries do qualify as terrorism, as they are illegal, violent, and serving political purposes.

Also missing is the Russian assassination programme of Putin's critics. Whether or not Russia's cyber-campaigns to meddle with Western democracies count as terrorism is more open to interpretation: as these incidents are not violent, can they be terrorism?

Finally, does "Islamic State" constitute a "state" and if so, should it be discussed in this article?

Just because some random organization claims itself a state, it is like me claiming to be Albert Eistein. Islamic State is no way a "state", it is a gang of former Iraqi Republican Guard and this organization cannot practice state terrorism, because it is not a state but an extra-violent organization. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 09:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Also what about Russian aggression on Ukraine? Even in 2014 with number of incidents against civilians on Crimea, Donbas and shooting down MH17 but especially in March 2022 with clearly shelling and shooting civilians all over the Ukraine and even destroying whole cities like Mariupol case. Also as I understand the idea of "war crime" - in this case it sounds euphemistic as war is closely related to conflict while in case of Russia and Ukraine there was just unprovoked, unreasonable (optionally cynically false-reasonable) and unjustified claims followed by aggression against democratic independent state of Ukraine.

What about Ukraine's actions such as civilian bombings and the destruction of infrastructure (Crimean bridge, etc)? Luroe (talk) 10:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Is this question a joke? --Denniss (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Civilians?

The previous version does not say that the target is the civilian population. This is crucial.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.192.126 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Defence

I think that the defending rather than state violence against civilians, should limit it to violence in the furtherence of politcal ends, preferably violence designed to create social climate to support those ends. Possibly the violence isn't even the key part of terrorism. See wikt:terrorism. Rich Farmbrough, 12:39 23 November 2006 (GMT). (Note:"state terrorism" -wikipedia only gets 677,000 hits unlike the search above.)

Hong Kong

According to Ruth J Blakeley, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Sheffield, state terrorism is defined as "the illegal targeting of individuals that the state has a duty to protect in order to instill fear in a target audience beyond the direct victim".

The Hong Kong Police has been publicly endorsed by the Chinese Government and local Hong Kong government in carrying out random violent attacks against peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders indiscriminately. The goal of the attacks, as announced by the two governments, is to install fear against anyone who dares to protest against government policies.

There are also plenty of video evidence that the Hong Kong Police colluded with local gangs in carrying out multiple attacks.

Unless you disagree with Professor Blakeley's definition of state terrorism, the deteriorating situation in Hong Kong falls under such definition, and the white terror as a result is already having a chilling effect among local residents. —  2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)WC comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 05:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What we need are reliable sources that call the Hong Kong police's actions "state terrorism" — you cannot make that claim on the basis of synthesis via the definition, because that would constitute original research. El_C 05:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Are sources like this acceptable? http://www.thestandard.com.hk/breaking-news.php?id=132197&sid=4 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 06:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)WC

The problem is that they are quoting a protester who call it "state terrorism" — but who else argues this? Like scholars, politicians, official governments, and so on. El_C 06:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

For example, local politician Au Nok-hin as quoted in news article: https://www2.hkej.com/instantnews/current/article/2197237/%E5%8D%80%E8%AB%BE%E8%BB%92%3A%E5%85%83%E6%9C%97%E6%9A%B4%E5%8A%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%E6%87%89%E5%AE%9A%E6%80%A7%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%81%90%E6%80%96%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 06:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

He seems to be talking about the Yuen Long attack, not necessarily the Hong Kong police, though. El_C 06:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And in related news article: https://tmhk.org/2019/07/22/%E6%B0%91%E4%B8%BB%E6%B4%BE%EF%BC%9A%E5%85%83%E6%9C%97%E8%A5%B2%E6%93%8A%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%E7%82%BA%E5%9C%8B%E5%AE%B6%E6%81%90%E6%80%96%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9-%E8%AD%A6%E6%8C%87%E7%84%A1%E4%BA%BA%E6%8C%81/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk • contribs) 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (UTC)

Please sign your user name using four tildes (~~~~). Again, is this about the Hong Kong police, specifically? I get that he's calling for the police chief to resign, but this is still not clear. El_C 06:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This news article provided a much more detailed quote by Mr. Au Nok-hin, http://www.epochtimes.com/gb/19/7/22/n11401902.htm

<<议员区诺轩更形容前晚是“国家恐怖主义”，政权企图以恐怖主义方式震慑市民。他说，因为恐怖主义一般泛指利用暴力手段无差别攻击平民，制造社会恐慌。但国家恐怖主义则强调，这种暴力造成的恐慌是政权默许、甚至有意图策划，制造社会白色恐怖，打压反对声音。他又指，前晚政府新闻稿形容中上环示威者为“暴力袭击”，元朗只是“冲突”：“不得不令人怀疑，林郑政权就像雨伞运动时，纵容黑社会使用暴力，而这次更无差别地攻击元朗站的平民。”>>

"Legislator Au Nok-hin described the night before as State Terrorism. The government attempted to shock residents through methods of terrorism...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 06:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

But again, about the police, specifically? Sorry, that article did not translate for me. El_C 06:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Yes. In the next few paragraph, 议员范国威质疑是警黑合作，早在上礼拜三，已有元朗的社会贤达、社会人士收到大量讯息，称在21日就会有白衣人闹事。“我们的特区政府做什么呢？我们的特区政府、我们的警队，就在中上环，因为要镇压示威者，集齐人马。元朗那里，就放轻手脚，所以我们有合理的怀疑是警黑合作。”

Legislator Gary Fan accuses the police of collusion with organized crime. As early as the previous Wednesday, well-connected people in Yuen Long had already gathered a lot of intelligence that white-shirted thugs would riot on the 21st. "What was our S.A.R. government doing? Our S.A.R. government, our police force, were heavily congregated in Central and Sheung Wan districts suppressing protesters. Over at Yuen Long, they were sparse. Therefore, we can reasonably suspect collusion between the police and organized crime 2607:FEA8:3C20:241:94CA:9097:DF59:E83F (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)WC

Again, that constitutes synthesis. You need to demonstrate that the Hong Kong police's actions were titled "State terrorism," specifically, not collusion or anything else that falls short of actually stating exactly that. El_C 07:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

On August 31, 2019, Hong Kong Police indiscriminately attacked unarmed civilians on a train in the Prince Edward Station.

Joshua Wong, the Secretary General of HK political party Demosisto, condemned on Twitter the action of the Hong Kong Police as State Terrorism.

https://twitter.com/joshuawongcf/status/1168116396300984320

2607:FEA8:3C20:241:39B6:EC9C:7EC9:74A1 (talk) 04:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)WC