Weber on Terrorism

application 2.  What  does the incidence of terrorism (e.g. 9/11, the truck in Berlin before Xmas, the Boston Marathon bombing) say about Weber’s definition of a state (the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a territory)?

Weber’s definition of a state, that the state has the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a territory, means that the state has the inherent right to use violence. From this definition, I assume that Weber implied that most of the physical force, or violence, committed by a state is justified. The three terrorist attacks mentioned in the prompt—9/11, the truck in Berlin before Christmas, and the Boston Marathon bombing—are commonly seen as acts against the people of the state or attacks against the state itself. Following Weber’s definition, then, it would seem that while the state could potentially use force against the terrorists, the terrorists’ use of force is not inherently legitimate. This struck me as interesting, particularly because after terrorist attacks or perceived terrorist attacks in the United States, suspects are usually interrogated or questioned, and sometimes tortured. However, such violence against individuals is usually considered to be legitimate not only because the violence is committed by the state, but also because the terrorist attacks were committed against the state. However, I wonder how this ends up applying to some not so famous terrorist attacks. Many people consider protesters damaging private property as small acts of terrorism, but police brutality against these individuals is also condemned by many. Does Weber’s definition apply?