Semantically, terrorism is violence against the state/privileged public, and "the legitimate use of force" is violence by the state, to the individual/disenfranchised public.
Are poor mostly black neighborhoods not under the duress of terror from the "Stop and Frisk" police in NY? What about Operation Northwood? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Also, just because you find certain actions morally reprehensible, doesn't mean they are. I'm sure we're all missing TONS of context. Also, to quote Nietzsche:
"Battle not with monsters, lest ye become a monster, and if you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."
If you can come up with a method for countering oppression that doesn't use force, but DOESN'T involve begging your oppressors, please let me in on the tactic.
Also, revolutionary anarchism is but a branch. You have many forms of anarchism. Most of which advocate peaceful coexistence without the use of force over individuals or communities.
I'd argue that dividing force into subsets of classifications is futile. You have force, you have coercion, and you have power. Anarchists inately believe that force/coercion is corrupting, which gives you a point, but many would agree that, "The war to end all wars is worth it."
So while the end may not justify the mean, The end that justifies all meaning - is something else entirely to look into.
No comments yet.
