"Terrorism does not emerge by accident but is usually sponsored by the state to serve the demands of a powerful elite"

Subtitle of an excellent article, "The Hidden Face of Terrorism", by Paul David Collins. Key quote:

To understand terrorism, one must discard the view that arbitrarily characterises it as "a resort to violence or a threat of violence on the part of a group seeking to accomplish a purpose against the opposition of constituted authority" (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, p. 309). Such an impotent notion is predicated upon the hopelessly flawed accidentalist perspective of history. It relegates terrorism, which is the product of conscious effort and design, to the realm of circumstantial spontaneity. In other words, a contrived act suddenly becomes an inexplicable social phenomenon.

In November 1989, Father Ignacio Martín-Baró, a social psychologist, delivered a speech in California on "The Psychological Consequences of Political Terror". In his speech, Martín-Baró gave a much more precise definition of terrorism, one that is ignored only at great peril. Noam Chomsky provides a synopsis of this speech (p. 386):

He [Martín-Baró] stressed several relevant points. First, the most significant form of terrorism, by a large measure, is state terrorism--that is, "terrorizing the whole population through systematic actions carried out by the forces of the state". Second, such terrorism is an essential part of a "government-imposed sociopolitical project" designed for the needs of the privileged.

Disturbing though it may be, Martín-Baró's definition is one validated by history. The majority of terrorism throughout history has found its sponsors in the hallowed halls of officialdom, in the entity known as government. Terrorism is surrogate warfare, a manufactured crisis designed to induce social change. Its combatants consciously or unconsciously wage the war on behalf of higher powers with higher agendas. Whether its adherents are aware of it or not, terrorism always serves the ambitions of another.

Putting aside 9/11 briefly, what is striking to me is how the Palestinian terrorism against Israel has ultimately led to the complete subjugation of Palestinians. I have to wonder if the Palestinian leaders were really that stupid to sponsor terrorist acts that led to their demise, or if something more sinister was going on. Certainly in the case of Israel and with 9/11, the terrorist acts did not help the people who were supposedly committing the acts-- Palestinians and al Qaeda. Who benefited the most from the terror attacks on Israel and who benefited the most from 9/11? Who was really sponsoring these attacks? Did the Palestinians and al Qaeda really think they could "win" by their terrorist campaigns? Or were they possibly manipulated by some other group-- the groups that benefited from the attacks (i.e. Israel and the U.S.)? Certainly in the case of Al Qaeda and 9/11, we can make a clear case that they were manipulated by the U.S. And given that Israel has ties to Palestinian terrorist groups, one could make a similar case as well.

(credit to Rigorous Intuition commenter "bin'dare" for finding this article)