I wouldn’t describe the JNGC retaliation as a ‘riot’ which implies spontaneous participation of the public, it was a paramilitary group engaging in a limited series of attacks against the state(and its civilian infrastructure)
By the narrowest definition this is terrorism, a non-state organization doing random acts of violence against civilians in order to send a political message to the state.
So if the organisation perpetrating the violence is a state, then its not terrorism? can an organisation can just declare themselves a state, or is their a threshold recognition by other states that converts terrorism to simply non-terroristic state violence?
So if the organisation perpetrating the violence is a state, then its not terrorism?
By the narrowest definition (that I do not agree with) no, that is not terrorism. Terrorism is done by non-state actors in the narrowest definition.
can an organisation can just declare themselves a state
In the same way that Michael Scott can declare Bankruptcy
Is there a threshold recognition by other states that converts terrorism to simply non-terroristic state violence?
Yes, welcome to geopolitics 101 and the modern concept of nation states.
What’s your point here? That the cartels are actually a state? That them attacking random civilians to send a political message to the Mexican government in an attempt to alter their policy is not terrorism, even by the narrowest definition? It is terrorism by all definitions, broad and narrow.
I disagree that terrorism definitionally requires the perpetrators to be ‘non-state actors’. And am wondering what’s the criteria for an organisation being considered a state? is a self declaration enough? or if the recognition by other states is required, then what is the threshold number?
I agreed it was terrorism, you are acting as if I said it wasn’t or am condoning it in anyway
El Mencho, the leader of big cartel in Mexico. He was targeted and killed by the Mexican army using US intel, which provoked a large riot.
I wouldn’t describe the JNGC retaliation as a ‘riot’ which implies spontaneous participation of the public, it was a paramilitary group engaging in a limited series of attacks against the state(and its civilian infrastructure)
AKA Terrorism.
It was Cartel Terrorism
sure if you use the broadest definition of terrorism i.e. violence perpetrated to elicit a political response
By the narrowest definition this is terrorism, a non-state organization doing random acts of violence against civilians in order to send a political message to the state.
So if the organisation perpetrating the violence is a state, then its not terrorism? can an organisation can just declare themselves a state, or is their a threshold recognition by other states that converts terrorism to simply non-terroristic state violence?
By the narrowest definition (that I do not agree with) no, that is not terrorism. Terrorism is done by non-state actors in the narrowest definition.
In the same way that Michael Scott can declare Bankruptcy
Yes, welcome to geopolitics 101 and the modern concept of nation states.
What’s your point here? That the cartels are actually a state? That them attacking random civilians to send a political message to the Mexican government in an attempt to alter their policy is not terrorism, even by the narrowest definition? It is terrorism by all definitions, broad and narrow.
I disagree that terrorism definitionally requires the perpetrators to be ‘non-state actors’. And am wondering what’s the criteria for an organisation being considered a state? is a self declaration enough? or if the recognition by other states is required, then what is the threshold number?
I agreed it was terrorism, you are acting as if I said it wasn’t or am condoning it in anyway
this is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The cartels are not a state, and if that’s actually your argument that’s absurd