The sentiment expressed by Ruggiero and others is that terrorism is a label that is applied to the actions of others, while the actions of the state are often framed as being in the name of anti-terrorism. This is a way of legitimizing state violence and marginalizing the violence of non-state actors. Ruggiero suggests that this sentiment ought to be the basis of all critical criminology because it highlights the power dynamics at play in defining what is and is not criminal.
Ruggiero also suggests that political violence theory ought to study the other point of view because it is possible that terrorists might turn out to be in the right. This is an important point because it challenges the dominant narrative that terrorists are always wrong and that state violence is always justified. By studying the other point of view, we can gain a more nuanced understanding of the complex political and social factors that lead to political violence.
The theoretical implications that flow from this are that we need to challenge our assumptions about what is and is not criminal. We need to recognize that the definition of crime is not fixed or objective, but is shaped by power dynamics and political interests. We need to be critical of the ways in which the state uses the label of terrorism to justify its own violence, and we need to be open to the possibility that non-state actors might have legitimate grievances that are not being addressed through conventional political channels.
The other reasons for this new direction criminology might take on terrorism and other crime include the need to develop a more nuanced understanding of the root causes of political violence, the need to challenge dominant narratives about terrorism and crime, and the need to develop more effective strategies for preventing and responding to political violence.