Louis,
Your definition of "state terrorism" means that any U.S. terrorism against
native Americans is still "state terrorism", simply because they are not
in the U.S.?
I can work with that.
But then offer a phrase to describe the possibility of terrorism within
the United States, under the auspices of the U.S. government or fractions
hereof. Or doesn't that ever happen and thus not worthy of a phrase?
Paul Z.
Pace Michael's (and Carrol's) observation, this will be my last post on the
matter.
Of course there can be state terrorism in the USA. The policy of Indian
removal was state terrorism. On the other hand, there was no *need* for the
US ruling class to kill thousands of people in the WTC. I look for
political explanations above all. They mean much more to me than arcane
discussions over whether WTC 7 could have collapsed, etc. The political
explanation is simple. There has been a pattern of Islamic radical terror
throughout the world for decades now. The motivation is to exact
concessions from imperialism. It is a foolish strategy but it springs from
a deep social and psychological well.
--
www.marxmail.org
