Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
WILLIAM A. COOK: Defining Terrorism from the Top Down
For the past six months, criticism of Israeli IOF actions against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank has increased exponentially as reported in British, French, and Greek newspapers, and in Ha'aretz. Ha'aretz has condemned this reaction as "rising anti-Semitism." The nature of the criticism, however, is not against the Jewish people, but against the kinds of actions taken by the Sharon forces against civilians, actions that can only be labeled as "terrorist" acts.
Calling It Like It Is
Defining Terrorism from the Top Down
By WILLIAM A. COOK
Tony Blair's refusal to acquiesce to Ariel Sharon's demands to sideline Arafat signals a recognition that sidelining one terrorist who has limited capacity to stop Hamas pales by comparison with Sharon's total control of the IDF and other renegade Israeli terrorist groups. Sharon's current trip to visit Blair and Bush, a calculated attempt to needle his bedfellows to control European governments' recognition of Arafat, is designed to force them to snub the democratically elected Arafat who is preventing the implementation of the Road Map while Sharon appears to be the man of peace. Needless to say, Sharon's insidious support of the settlements and his terrorist acts as he removes troops from the occupied territories stamps him as the obstacle in the road to peace. Sharon's trip follows
President Bush's recent demand made to the EU ministers in Washington, that they declare Hamas a terrorist organization and take action to interrupt its economic activities, a demand that found little support among EU representatives.
The issue is complex because the definition of "terrorist" is not precise. Indeed, the very actions condemned by Bush about Hamas are actions that other nations find condemnatory about Bush. Terrorism is as terrorism does, or so one would think. Dictionary definitions reflect a consensus in meaning at a point in time, but definitions become the prerogative of those in power when it is in their interest to impose parameters on words that impact policy direction. To the victor belongs meaning and historical perspective. Thus it is with the words "terrorism," "terrorist," and "terrorize." To terrorize, according to the dictionary, means "to dominate or coerce by intimidation." A "terrorist" is one who attempts to dominate and coerce by intimidation, and "terrorism" is "a method of resisting a government."
These definitions incriminate Osama bin Laden and the undeclared leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, but they also incriminate the ultra right Zionists in Israel, and, one could argue, the hard-right Evangelical Zionists in America. More tellingly, and this is the point of this article, they incriminate the United States under Bush and Israel under Sharon. Obviously, our government cannot allow the consensus meaning to reflect the actuality. Therefore, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
While the dictionary definition is open-ended, allowing for the possibility of governments to be active in terrorist activities, the USC definition does not. The most recent Encarta encyclopedia article describing terrorism is quite specific on this point: "These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals that is, by those who are neither part of or officially serving in the military forces " This description precedes the historical evolution of the word that marks its origin during the French Revolution (1789-1799), the regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror), a quite specific reference to a government!
In his most recent book, The Lessons of Terrorism (2003), Caleb Carr defines terrorism this way: "Terrorism is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable." Interestingly, Carr does not excuse armed forces or units of a nation from the definition. Indeed, Carr includes in his understanding of terrorist the likes of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, William Tecumseh Sherman, Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger to name a few. Each of these individuals supported deliberate and premeditated attacks against civilians. Carr's historical survey of terrorism, written in response to current world wide terrorist activity, is decidedly more inclusive than the government definition.
Why be concerned with the definition of a word? The answer is simple. By excluding governments and nation-states from the definition, the ruling powers can inflict corrosive and pejorative terms on those opposing them thereby justifying any actions they use to subdue their enemy.
Hatred, revenge, greed, and insecurity propel terrorists to act; all four motivations characterize the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals and groups. To exclude nation-states from the definition is to accept terrorist behavior against civilians and ultimately to justify it. That is the case with the Bush administration's acquiescence to the Sharon government's terrorism against the Palestinians. It also allows Bush to lie to the American people to incite them to invading another nation that is of no threat to them and to intentionally inflict harm, including death, on innocent civilians. Exclusion of nation-states allows for simplistic judgments on those who oppose government action by labeling dissenters as "anti-government," as in anti-Semitic or anti-American or unpatriotic, thus avoiding analysis of the government's actions by blanket condemnation. Indeed, the power of the respective governments, that of Sharon and that of Bush, to silence criticism and to marginalize vocal dissenters are well-documented and only points to the need to keep the issue alive.
For the past six months, criticism of Israeli IOF actions against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank has increased exponentially as reported in British, French, and Greek newspapers, and in Ha'aretz. Ha'aretz has condemned this reaction as "rising anti-Semitism." The nature of the criticism, however, is not against the Jewish people, but against the kinds of actions taken by the Sharon forces against civilians, actions that can only be labeled as "terrorist" acts.
Consider the recent actions taken by Sharon against the Palestinian people. These deliberate, provocative acts have predetermined consequences designed to intimidate and coerce the people to relinquish their rights to their homeland and livelihood. They are acts that force another government to accept the perpetrator's intended goal; that other government is the United States and the goal is the erosion of the "Road Map" and the acquisition of additional land, belonging to the Palestinians, to the state of Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported on April 8, "The construction of over a dozen Jewish enclaves in predominantly Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is aimed at blocking any possibility of dividing Jerusalem in the future." Edward Sheehan reports in The New York Review on June 5, "Israeli settlements in eastern suburbs effectively detach the Palestinian West Bank from Jerusalem. The final result of this strategy 'will be the transformation of Arab Jerusalem into a ghetto and slum.'"
Earlier this spring, Tikkun magazine provided its readers with an inventory of terrorist behaviors by the Sharon government. There are too many to list here but they include awakening residents in the town of Beit Lahiya in the middle of the night, over two hundred, "including small children and women who had given birth 2 days earlier were forced to huddle together for hours in the cold winter night until the army let them return to their homes." "Preventing the residents of entire cities from leaving their houses for weeks on end (no exceptions-not for chemo, dialysis, childbirth, buying food, attending school, or visiting your sick mother)", damaging ambulances, assassinating "people without the niceties of trial and due process, killing children including infants and toddlers, etc. These kinds of behaviors brought condemnation on Sharon's government by Bishop Tutu; he likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the oppression of blacks by the white apartheid government in South Africa. He added, "I can't believe the United States really believes in its impotence" to halt Israel's military reprisals.
Sheehan's recent report details Israeli actions and their consequences to the people. "I visited the town of Beit Hanoun the army destroyed twenty-five water wells and the sewage system, which resulted in drinking water being mixed with raw sewage." "Paved roads were broken up by Israeli bulldozers; great tracks of farmland citrus groves, olive trees, greenhouses as well were uprooted to create no man's lands around the Israeli settlements of Alai Sinai, Nevets Sala, and Nissanit." Such actions force civilians to move from their homes either because they have been destroyed or because their source of livelihood has been destroyed. These are terrorist acts.
Sharon's savagery against the Palestinian people has given rise to reactions in France, Germany, and Greece, especially Greece, and to the anticipated condemnation of these reactions as anti-Semitic. The European Union's Greek presidency "condemned the Israeli raid on Tulkarem and Ein Shams refugee camp last week, where at least 1000 Palestinians were detained and prevented from going back to their homes " Ha'aretz condemned the Greek papers for reporting Sharon's actions as comparable to those of the Nazis against the Jews, the image of Israel as a "Nazi country " that attacks "defenseless Palestinians."
The article in Ha'aretz does not attempt a comparison that might suggest to the Greeks and others how similar the actions of the Sharon government are to those of Nazi Germany. This past March, at an international conference on human evil, held in Prague, Professor Karen Doerr compared the terminology used by the Germans to that used by Sharon and the Zionist forces in Israel. The Germans "evacuated" and "resettled" the Jews; the Israelis "transfer" and "resettle" the Palestinians. The Nazis used the term "selection" to choose a concentration inmate for murder; Sharon uses "extrajudicial execution." The Germans detained Jews in "work camps"; Sharon uses Palestinian "territories" and only recently added, "occupied" territories. The Nazis had a "final solution" to their problem with the Jews; Sharon adopted "terrorists" following 9/11, a term used generally about the Palestinian people since they are guilty of harboring terrorists, to signify those he had to eliminate. Language always suffers from those who wish to camouflage the reality of their actions. Israeli forces make "incursions," never invasions, into Palestinian territories; they assault to "flush out" top fugitives, they do not assassinate; helicopter gunships "exchange fire" with Palestinian gunmen, they don't attack with overwhelming force; Arafat is "confined" to his compound, not imprisoned; he could be "expelled" from Palestine, never deported or forcefully removed from office by an occupying power; tanks "roll" into the territories, they do not crush and destroy homes and vineyards. Such is the abuse of language.
Is it not possible, then, to understand the reaction of people sitting outside Israel, witnessing the actions of the Sharon government and his IOF as they devastate a defenseless population? Are not these actions comparable to those used by the Nazis? Is not the walling in of the Palestinians with the cement fence and electrified wires, the destruction of water wells and diversion of others to Israeli use, the rounding up of Palestinian civilians in the night, the assassination without trial of leaders of those oppressed, the humiliation and dehumanization of the people, the forceful taking of their means of livelihood, the intentional intimidation of civilians, are not these actions comparable to those of the Nazis against the innocent Jews in Germany? If the ultimate purpose of Sharon's government is the eradication of the Palestinian people, not by use of gas chambers, but by forced removal, euphemistically called "transferal," from their land through intimidation including incremental killings, then the comparison, like that made by Bishop Tutu to the apartheid regime in South Africa, is apt. This is not condemnation of the Jewish people but of their government that acts in their name. For Americans, who must live with the Bush administration's acquiescence of Sharon's slaughter paid for by their tax dollars, the dilemma is the same, dissent and be damned as un-American or stay silent and be the means of support for terrorism.
Ran HaCohen writes of the "Hebron terrorists," the fanatical Jewish settlers who "ransack Palestinian shops, cut electricity lines and water pipes, wreck cars, and attack schoolchildren," that they are a "criminal gang actively nurtured by the State," a group of 450 protected by 4000 Israeli troops. This is terrorism defended and accepted by the state. How effective is this terrorism? "So far, the junta's policy has proven quite effective," according to HaCohen, "Driven away by economic strangulation and fear of settlers' violence, the population of 12,000 Palestinians who inhabited Hebron's Old City has dwindled to 5,000 souls since the division of the city in 1997." That is premeditated intimidation and coercion of civilians, the very definition of terrorism, done by the state of Israel supported by the Bush administration.
Hamas has been condemned by the Bush and Sharon administrations for using bombs strapped around the body as terrorism against innocent civilians, and indeed they are. Yet these same men find the use of "flechette" bullets that scatter pellets of death into multiple civilians legitimate weapons to use against Palestinians. They find no problems using missiles fired into crowded city streets or the use of cluster bombs in Iraq as legitimate weapons of war. Both accept as legitimate weapons for use in civilian areas high altitude bombing whether from F-16s or Apache helicopters. Yet such use anticipates civilian deaths and is, therefore, deliberate slaughter and cannot even be placed in the category of "collateral damage." The day Sharon left Washington, having conferred his blessings on Bush, Israeli tanks again fired into a crowded Gaza neighborhood in Rafah and killed six civilians including children. This is terrorism.
Even as the Israeli military moved out of Beit Hanoun on July 1, 2003 to begin the process that would bring into existence the "road map," they "leveled dozens of homes and factories, tore up roads and uprooted trees," according to the Guardian. Why? For "security" reasons. That's why they destroyed 1,000 acres of citrus trees! "Security" says it all; it is the cover word for terrorist actions. Bush uses the same word to detain hundreds of men who have never been charged with a crime and never had access to a lawyer. These are the actions of a terrorist state.
Why is it that these two men can act like terrorists and not be condemned for it? Because a definition has been designed that excludes them as heads of state and terrorism cannot be applied to states. Therein lies the power of words. But the world has not been fooled. Consider the UN resolutions condemning Israel for such acts: 252 (1968) calling on Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties; 446 (1979) calling upon Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, especially "not to transport parts of its civilian population into occupied Arab territories"; 465 (1980) calling on Israel to cease construction of settlements in Arab territories; 471 (1981) calling on Israel to prosecute those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders; 799 (1992) calling upon Israel "to reaffirm the Fourth Geneva Convention in all occupied territories since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the convention"; 1405 (2002) calling on Israel to allow UN inspectors to "investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp; 1435 (2002) calling on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure; and these are only a few. These resolutions describe terrorist activities, activities supported by the Bush administration including vetoing such resolutions. Given the severity of the actions challenged by the UN, one would think Bush would rush to the UN demanding that Israel be brought before it for defying its resolutions, something he used as a "gimmick" to take his "war" to Iraq. But deception and hypocrisy are the modus operandi of this administration, not openness, honesty, and reason.
Clearly, Bush's demands to the EU ministers in Washington to declare Hamas a terrorist organization fell on deaf ears because they have been involved in the development of the resolutions listed above. They know the terrorism perpetrated by Sharon and Bush and would find condemning Hamas, a complicated organization that provides humanitarian relief to Palestinians as well as militant activity against the occupying forces of Israel, a gesture in the wind. The beginning of the end of terrorism starts with regime change in Israel and Washington.
William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, was just published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: cookb [at] ULV.EDU
Defining Terrorism from the Top Down
By WILLIAM A. COOK
Tony Blair's refusal to acquiesce to Ariel Sharon's demands to sideline Arafat signals a recognition that sidelining one terrorist who has limited capacity to stop Hamas pales by comparison with Sharon's total control of the IDF and other renegade Israeli terrorist groups. Sharon's current trip to visit Blair and Bush, a calculated attempt to needle his bedfellows to control European governments' recognition of Arafat, is designed to force them to snub the democratically elected Arafat who is preventing the implementation of the Road Map while Sharon appears to be the man of peace. Needless to say, Sharon's insidious support of the settlements and his terrorist acts as he removes troops from the occupied territories stamps him as the obstacle in the road to peace. Sharon's trip follows
President Bush's recent demand made to the EU ministers in Washington, that they declare Hamas a terrorist organization and take action to interrupt its economic activities, a demand that found little support among EU representatives.
The issue is complex because the definition of "terrorist" is not precise. Indeed, the very actions condemned by Bush about Hamas are actions that other nations find condemnatory about Bush. Terrorism is as terrorism does, or so one would think. Dictionary definitions reflect a consensus in meaning at a point in time, but definitions become the prerogative of those in power when it is in their interest to impose parameters on words that impact policy direction. To the victor belongs meaning and historical perspective. Thus it is with the words "terrorism," "terrorist," and "terrorize." To terrorize, according to the dictionary, means "to dominate or coerce by intimidation." A "terrorist" is one who attempts to dominate and coerce by intimidation, and "terrorism" is "a method of resisting a government."
These definitions incriminate Osama bin Laden and the undeclared leaders of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah, but they also incriminate the ultra right Zionists in Israel, and, one could argue, the hard-right Evangelical Zionists in America. More tellingly, and this is the point of this article, they incriminate the United States under Bush and Israel under Sharon. Obviously, our government cannot allow the consensus meaning to reflect the actuality. Therefore, the United States defines terrorism (18 USC 2331) as "violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping."
While the dictionary definition is open-ended, allowing for the possibility of governments to be active in terrorist activities, the USC definition does not. The most recent Encarta encyclopedia article describing terrorism is quite specific on this point: "These violent acts are committed by nongovernmental groups or individuals that is, by those who are neither part of or officially serving in the military forces " This description precedes the historical evolution of the word that marks its origin during the French Revolution (1789-1799), the regime de la terreur (Reign of Terror), a quite specific reference to a government!
In his most recent book, The Lessons of Terrorism (2003), Caleb Carr defines terrorism this way: "Terrorism is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable." Interestingly, Carr does not excuse armed forces or units of a nation from the definition. Indeed, Carr includes in his understanding of terrorist the likes of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, William Tecumseh Sherman, Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger to name a few. Each of these individuals supported deliberate and premeditated attacks against civilians. Carr's historical survey of terrorism, written in response to current world wide terrorist activity, is decidedly more inclusive than the government definition.
Why be concerned with the definition of a word? The answer is simple. By excluding governments and nation-states from the definition, the ruling powers can inflict corrosive and pejorative terms on those opposing them thereby justifying any actions they use to subdue their enemy.
Hatred, revenge, greed, and insecurity propel terrorists to act; all four motivations characterize the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals and groups. To exclude nation-states from the definition is to accept terrorist behavior against civilians and ultimately to justify it. That is the case with the Bush administration's acquiescence to the Sharon government's terrorism against the Palestinians. It also allows Bush to lie to the American people to incite them to invading another nation that is of no threat to them and to intentionally inflict harm, including death, on innocent civilians. Exclusion of nation-states allows for simplistic judgments on those who oppose government action by labeling dissenters as "anti-government," as in anti-Semitic or anti-American or unpatriotic, thus avoiding analysis of the government's actions by blanket condemnation. Indeed, the power of the respective governments, that of Sharon and that of Bush, to silence criticism and to marginalize vocal dissenters are well-documented and only points to the need to keep the issue alive.
For the past six months, criticism of Israeli IOF actions against civilians in Gaza and the West Bank has increased exponentially as reported in British, French, and Greek newspapers, and in Ha'aretz. Ha'aretz has condemned this reaction as "rising anti-Semitism." The nature of the criticism, however, is not against the Jewish people, but against the kinds of actions taken by the Sharon forces against civilians, actions that can only be labeled as "terrorist" acts.
Consider the recent actions taken by Sharon against the Palestinian people. These deliberate, provocative acts have predetermined consequences designed to intimidate and coerce the people to relinquish their rights to their homeland and livelihood. They are acts that force another government to accept the perpetrator's intended goal; that other government is the United States and the goal is the erosion of the "Road Map" and the acquisition of additional land, belonging to the Palestinians, to the state of Israel. The Jerusalem Post reported on April 8, "The construction of over a dozen Jewish enclaves in predominantly Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem is aimed at blocking any possibility of dividing Jerusalem in the future." Edward Sheehan reports in The New York Review on June 5, "Israeli settlements in eastern suburbs effectively detach the Palestinian West Bank from Jerusalem. The final result of this strategy 'will be the transformation of Arab Jerusalem into a ghetto and slum.'"
Earlier this spring, Tikkun magazine provided its readers with an inventory of terrorist behaviors by the Sharon government. There are too many to list here but they include awakening residents in the town of Beit Lahiya in the middle of the night, over two hundred, "including small children and women who had given birth 2 days earlier were forced to huddle together for hours in the cold winter night until the army let them return to their homes." "Preventing the residents of entire cities from leaving their houses for weeks on end (no exceptions-not for chemo, dialysis, childbirth, buying food, attending school, or visiting your sick mother)", damaging ambulances, assassinating "people without the niceties of trial and due process, killing children including infants and toddlers, etc. These kinds of behaviors brought condemnation on Sharon's government by Bishop Tutu; he likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the oppression of blacks by the white apartheid government in South Africa. He added, "I can't believe the United States really believes in its impotence" to halt Israel's military reprisals.
Sheehan's recent report details Israeli actions and their consequences to the people. "I visited the town of Beit Hanoun the army destroyed twenty-five water wells and the sewage system, which resulted in drinking water being mixed with raw sewage." "Paved roads were broken up by Israeli bulldozers; great tracks of farmland citrus groves, olive trees, greenhouses as well were uprooted to create no man's lands around the Israeli settlements of Alai Sinai, Nevets Sala, and Nissanit." Such actions force civilians to move from their homes either because they have been destroyed or because their source of livelihood has been destroyed. These are terrorist acts.
Sharon's savagery against the Palestinian people has given rise to reactions in France, Germany, and Greece, especially Greece, and to the anticipated condemnation of these reactions as anti-Semitic. The European Union's Greek presidency "condemned the Israeli raid on Tulkarem and Ein Shams refugee camp last week, where at least 1000 Palestinians were detained and prevented from going back to their homes " Ha'aretz condemned the Greek papers for reporting Sharon's actions as comparable to those of the Nazis against the Jews, the image of Israel as a "Nazi country " that attacks "defenseless Palestinians."
The article in Ha'aretz does not attempt a comparison that might suggest to the Greeks and others how similar the actions of the Sharon government are to those of Nazi Germany. This past March, at an international conference on human evil, held in Prague, Professor Karen Doerr compared the terminology used by the Germans to that used by Sharon and the Zionist forces in Israel. The Germans "evacuated" and "resettled" the Jews; the Israelis "transfer" and "resettle" the Palestinians. The Nazis used the term "selection" to choose a concentration inmate for murder; Sharon uses "extrajudicial execution." The Germans detained Jews in "work camps"; Sharon uses Palestinian "territories" and only recently added, "occupied" territories. The Nazis had a "final solution" to their problem with the Jews; Sharon adopted "terrorists" following 9/11, a term used generally about the Palestinian people since they are guilty of harboring terrorists, to signify those he had to eliminate. Language always suffers from those who wish to camouflage the reality of their actions. Israeli forces make "incursions," never invasions, into Palestinian territories; they assault to "flush out" top fugitives, they do not assassinate; helicopter gunships "exchange fire" with Palestinian gunmen, they don't attack with overwhelming force; Arafat is "confined" to his compound, not imprisoned; he could be "expelled" from Palestine, never deported or forcefully removed from office by an occupying power; tanks "roll" into the territories, they do not crush and destroy homes and vineyards. Such is the abuse of language.
Is it not possible, then, to understand the reaction of people sitting outside Israel, witnessing the actions of the Sharon government and his IOF as they devastate a defenseless population? Are not these actions comparable to those used by the Nazis? Is not the walling in of the Palestinians with the cement fence and electrified wires, the destruction of water wells and diversion of others to Israeli use, the rounding up of Palestinian civilians in the night, the assassination without trial of leaders of those oppressed, the humiliation and dehumanization of the people, the forceful taking of their means of livelihood, the intentional intimidation of civilians, are not these actions comparable to those of the Nazis against the innocent Jews in Germany? If the ultimate purpose of Sharon's government is the eradication of the Palestinian people, not by use of gas chambers, but by forced removal, euphemistically called "transferal," from their land through intimidation including incremental killings, then the comparison, like that made by Bishop Tutu to the apartheid regime in South Africa, is apt. This is not condemnation of the Jewish people but of their government that acts in their name. For Americans, who must live with the Bush administration's acquiescence of Sharon's slaughter paid for by their tax dollars, the dilemma is the same, dissent and be damned as un-American or stay silent and be the means of support for terrorism.
Ran HaCohen writes of the "Hebron terrorists," the fanatical Jewish settlers who "ransack Palestinian shops, cut electricity lines and water pipes, wreck cars, and attack schoolchildren," that they are a "criminal gang actively nurtured by the State," a group of 450 protected by 4000 Israeli troops. This is terrorism defended and accepted by the state. How effective is this terrorism? "So far, the junta's policy has proven quite effective," according to HaCohen, "Driven away by economic strangulation and fear of settlers' violence, the population of 12,000 Palestinians who inhabited Hebron's Old City has dwindled to 5,000 souls since the division of the city in 1997." That is premeditated intimidation and coercion of civilians, the very definition of terrorism, done by the state of Israel supported by the Bush administration.
Hamas has been condemned by the Bush and Sharon administrations for using bombs strapped around the body as terrorism against innocent civilians, and indeed they are. Yet these same men find the use of "flechette" bullets that scatter pellets of death into multiple civilians legitimate weapons to use against Palestinians. They find no problems using missiles fired into crowded city streets or the use of cluster bombs in Iraq as legitimate weapons of war. Both accept as legitimate weapons for use in civilian areas high altitude bombing whether from F-16s or Apache helicopters. Yet such use anticipates civilian deaths and is, therefore, deliberate slaughter and cannot even be placed in the category of "collateral damage." The day Sharon left Washington, having conferred his blessings on Bush, Israeli tanks again fired into a crowded Gaza neighborhood in Rafah and killed six civilians including children. This is terrorism.
Even as the Israeli military moved out of Beit Hanoun on July 1, 2003 to begin the process that would bring into existence the "road map," they "leveled dozens of homes and factories, tore up roads and uprooted trees," according to the Guardian. Why? For "security" reasons. That's why they destroyed 1,000 acres of citrus trees! "Security" says it all; it is the cover word for terrorist actions. Bush uses the same word to detain hundreds of men who have never been charged with a crime and never had access to a lawyer. These are the actions of a terrorist state.
Why is it that these two men can act like terrorists and not be condemned for it? Because a definition has been designed that excludes them as heads of state and terrorism cannot be applied to states. Therein lies the power of words. But the world has not been fooled. Consider the UN resolutions condemning Israel for such acts: 252 (1968) calling on Israel to rescind measures that change the legal status of Jerusalem, including the expropriation of land and properties; 446 (1979) calling upon Israel to abide by the Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers, especially "not to transport parts of its civilian population into occupied Arab territories"; 465 (1980) calling on Israel to cease construction of settlements in Arab territories; 471 (1981) calling on Israel to prosecute those involved in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders; 799 (1992) calling upon Israel "to reaffirm the Fourth Geneva Convention in all occupied territories since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the convention"; 1405 (2002) calling on Israel to allow UN inspectors to "investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp; 1435 (2002) calling on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure; and these are only a few. These resolutions describe terrorist activities, activities supported by the Bush administration including vetoing such resolutions. Given the severity of the actions challenged by the UN, one would think Bush would rush to the UN demanding that Israel be brought before it for defying its resolutions, something he used as a "gimmick" to take his "war" to Iraq. But deception and hypocrisy are the modus operandi of this administration, not openness, honesty, and reason.
Clearly, Bush's demands to the EU ministers in Washington to declare Hamas a terrorist organization fell on deaf ears because they have been involved in the development of the resolutions listed above. They know the terrorism perpetrated by Sharon and Bush and would find condemning Hamas, a complicated organization that provides humanitarian relief to Palestinians as well as militant activity against the occupying forces of Israel, a gesture in the wind. The beginning of the end of terrorism starts with regime change in Israel and Washington.
William Cook is a professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. His new book, Psalms for the 21st Century, was just published by Mellen Press. He can be reached at: cookb [at] ULV.EDU
For more information:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cook07162003.html
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
This is an excellent article, well-worth reading.
An alternate title for this article could be "Who are the terrorists?"
This is a great article, and it shows what most independent minds have been saying all along with respect to "terrorism", and who actually is a "terrorist".
In his most recent book, The Lessons of Terrorism (2003), Caleb Carr defines terrorism this way: "Terrorism is simply the contemporary name given to, and the modern permutation of, warfare deliberately waged against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to support either leaders or policies that the agents of such violence find objectionable."
canadian police wage a "war against crime" (or drugs) against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to comitt these crimes and suport those who comitt these crimes (such as drug dealers and gangsters). crime and drugs being the things that canadian police find objectionable."
Nice Canada is a terrorist state eh? Shall we start bombing now?
" Interestingly, Carr does not excuse armed forces or units of a nation from the definition."
because his definition does not have to be applicable in a lgal setting and therefore he does not need to exclude people like the canadian police from his set of terrorists.
" Indeed, Carr includes in his understanding of terrorist the likes of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, William Tecumseh Sherman, Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger to name a few."
them and the canadian police and those who fund or support them.
" Each of these individuals supported deliberate and premeditated attacks against civilians."
Oh SOOO true. ever heard of a "stake out"
Carr's historical survey of terrorism, written in response to current world wide terrorist activity, is decidedly more inclusive than the government definition.
- guess he never staged a stakeout so he is probably safe from this procecution.
Why be concerned with the definition of a word? The answer is simple. By excluding governments and nation-states from the definition, the ruling powers can inflict corrosive and pejorative terms on those opposing them thereby justifying any actions they use to subdue their enemy.
- exactly.. those evil police keeping the criminals down.
and those evil tax paying civilians that support them.
Hatred, revenge, greed, and insecurity propel terrorists to act; all four motivations characterize the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals and groups.
- you might have to strech this to explain why the US got involved in somalia or other places like that but you could say the canadian police has a "hatred for criminals (generally speaking), revenge (quite often) greed (they get paid dont they?) and insecurity (could be insecurity about crime or you could get all freudian).
" To exclude nation-states from the definition is to accept terrorist behavior against civilians and ultimately to justify it."
- no there are other words in the english language besides "terrorism"
"These deliberate, provocative acts have predetermined consequences designed to intimidate and coerce the people to relinquish their rights to their homeland and livelihood."
- there are other explinations. this guy is saying he can read minds.
"Are not these actions comparable to those used by the Nazis?"
- you can compare anything I guess but that doesn not mean that there is any significant connection.
"Hamas has been condemned by the Bush and Sharon administrations for using bombs strapped around the body as terrorism against innocent civilians,"
" and indeed they are." OK we agree sweet.
Now back to the canadian police and their use of guns or any other form of police tool that could concievably cause death (such as a batton)..
" Yet such use anticipates civilian deaths and is, therefore, deliberate slaughter and cannot even be placed in the category of "collateral damage.""
OK fair enough look like the canadian police are responsible for mass murder...
" This is terrorism."
OK sorry.. terrorism..
they "leveled dozens of homes and factories, tore up roads and uprooted trees,"
OK the canadian police (who evicted tennents) and the building industry (who actually knocked down buildings in canada) are terrorists yet again.. do oyu have to keep attacking canada???
Why? For "security" reasons. Such as stopping murderers or because the buildings were unsafe..
"Security" says it all; it is the cover word for the canadian polices terrorist actions.
Why is it that these police can act like terrorists and not be condemned for it? Because a definition has been designed that excludes them
The beginning of the end of terrorism starts with an end to policing in canada!!!
canadian police wage a "war against crime" (or drugs) against civilians with the purpose of destroying their will to comitt these crimes and suport those who comitt these crimes (such as drug dealers and gangsters). crime and drugs being the things that canadian police find objectionable."
Nice Canada is a terrorist state eh? Shall we start bombing now?
" Interestingly, Carr does not excuse armed forces or units of a nation from the definition."
because his definition does not have to be applicable in a lgal setting and therefore he does not need to exclude people like the canadian police from his set of terrorists.
" Indeed, Carr includes in his understanding of terrorist the likes of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, William Tecumseh Sherman, Richard Nixon, and Henry Kissinger to name a few."
them and the canadian police and those who fund or support them.
" Each of these individuals supported deliberate and premeditated attacks against civilians."
Oh SOOO true. ever heard of a "stake out"
Carr's historical survey of terrorism, written in response to current world wide terrorist activity, is decidedly more inclusive than the government definition.
- guess he never staged a stakeout so he is probably safe from this procecution.
Why be concerned with the definition of a word? The answer is simple. By excluding governments and nation-states from the definition, the ruling powers can inflict corrosive and pejorative terms on those opposing them thereby justifying any actions they use to subdue their enemy.
- exactly.. those evil police keeping the criminals down.
and those evil tax paying civilians that support them.
Hatred, revenge, greed, and insecurity propel terrorists to act; all four motivations characterize the behavior of nation-states as well as individuals and groups.
- you might have to strech this to explain why the US got involved in somalia or other places like that but you could say the canadian police has a "hatred for criminals (generally speaking), revenge (quite often) greed (they get paid dont they?) and insecurity (could be insecurity about crime or you could get all freudian).
" To exclude nation-states from the definition is to accept terrorist behavior against civilians and ultimately to justify it."
- no there are other words in the english language besides "terrorism"
"These deliberate, provocative acts have predetermined consequences designed to intimidate and coerce the people to relinquish their rights to their homeland and livelihood."
- there are other explinations. this guy is saying he can read minds.
"Are not these actions comparable to those used by the Nazis?"
- you can compare anything I guess but that doesn not mean that there is any significant connection.
"Hamas has been condemned by the Bush and Sharon administrations for using bombs strapped around the body as terrorism against innocent civilians,"
" and indeed they are." OK we agree sweet.
Now back to the canadian police and their use of guns or any other form of police tool that could concievably cause death (such as a batton)..
" Yet such use anticipates civilian deaths and is, therefore, deliberate slaughter and cannot even be placed in the category of "collateral damage.""
OK fair enough look like the canadian police are responsible for mass murder...
" This is terrorism."
OK sorry.. terrorism..
they "leveled dozens of homes and factories, tore up roads and uprooted trees,"
OK the canadian police (who evicted tennents) and the building industry (who actually knocked down buildings in canada) are terrorists yet again.. do oyu have to keep attacking canada???
Why? For "security" reasons. Such as stopping murderers or because the buildings were unsafe..
"Security" says it all; it is the cover word for the canadian polices terrorist actions.
Why is it that these police can act like terrorists and not be condemned for it? Because a definition has been designed that excludes them
The beginning of the end of terrorism starts with an end to policing in canada!!!
that's not the same definition the defense dept. uses.
It is something like: violence for political means, whether assasination, kidnapping, or any other kind of violence for a political reason.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Thus, Israel, USA, Palestine, Iraq and most states are guilty of terrorism.
It is something like: violence for political means, whether assasination, kidnapping, or any other kind of violence for a political reason.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Thus, Israel, USA, Palestine, Iraq and most states are guilty of terrorism.
well all of them that bother to enforce laws.
So I will exclude the solomon islands for now.
Hurry off to the solomon islands the one innocent country in the world because its government cant afford to pay the power bill
Of course if you get killed by a criminal there I would not be very surprised.
So I will exclude the solomon islands for now.
Hurry off to the solomon islands the one innocent country in the world because its government cant afford to pay the power bill
Of course if you get killed by a criminal there I would not be very surprised.
Man, was I ever wrong about you!
Leave Canada out of your damn mix, okay? "Shall we bomb them?"
Who really is the terrorist here, Mr. Scottie? I'll have more to say to you later when I return from work.
Leave Canada out of your damn mix, okay? "Shall we bomb them?"
Who really is the terrorist here, Mr. Scottie? I'll have more to say to you later when I return from work.
Under International Law, states can be guilty of "war crimes". Individuals or armed groups not controlled by a state can perpetrate "terrorism".
See the "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings" and related material.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/t_0029.htm
See the "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings" and related material.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/terrorism/t_0029.htm
Misrepresenting an apple as a banana does'nt make the apple easier to peel.
UN RESOLUTION 52/164 "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings" that you continue to try to pass off on us, neither defines 'terrorism' per se, nor does it define 'terrorist acts' while it attempts to define acts using explosives and similar devices - these are by no means the only acts of terrorism! Further it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
If Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied land and includes expropriation of civilian land and claims these lands to be part or portion of Israel, Neither Israel nor you can claim that Palestine is a soveriegn country.
If you claim that this treaty is applies, and is valid in this case, then Israel MUST be in violation of the Geneva Conventions by settling it's citizens on foreign territory.
If you or Israel feels that this territory is part or a portion of Israel, then Israel MUST be in violation of the of the UN Charter as it has taken and occupies land in either an attempt to expand it's territory in violation of Article 51.
If you feel, as you have claimed that Israel's claim that Israel does not actually control the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (this - your excuse for the murder of 18 and the injury of more 50 claimed as 'collateral damage' in the 'extra-judicial killing' of one militant) is correct, then obviously you haven't been paying attention.
If you feel that these deaths - many of whom were children, were justified, then I truly pity you as you show the morals of a true fan of genocide.
UN RESOLUTION 52/164 "International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings" that you continue to try to pass off on us, neither defines 'terrorism' per se, nor does it define 'terrorist acts' while it attempts to define acts using explosives and similar devices - these are by no means the only acts of terrorism! Further it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
If Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied land and includes expropriation of civilian land and claims these lands to be part or portion of Israel, Neither Israel nor you can claim that Palestine is a soveriegn country.
If you claim that this treaty is applies, and is valid in this case, then Israel MUST be in violation of the Geneva Conventions by settling it's citizens on foreign territory.
If you or Israel feels that this territory is part or a portion of Israel, then Israel MUST be in violation of the of the UN Charter as it has taken and occupies land in either an attempt to expand it's territory in violation of Article 51.
If you feel, as you have claimed that Israel's claim that Israel does not actually control the Gaza Strip or the West Bank (this - your excuse for the murder of 18 and the injury of more 50 claimed as 'collateral damage' in the 'extra-judicial killing' of one militant) is correct, then obviously you haven't been paying attention.
If you feel that these deaths - many of whom were children, were justified, then I truly pity you as you show the morals of a true fan of genocide.
Angie
Maybe I accidentily deleeted the first bit of that post which stated very slowly that it was a "reduction to absurdity" to point out why your definition was unworkable. if that was indeed missing you should have been able to work it out from the title. I am not suggesting anyone bomb anyone i am just saying that the guys definition is not one we could use in international law.
Dont pretend that i was being serious about bombing canada when my title defined that the below was a "unworkable definition"
"Shall we bomb them?"
It is a rehtorical question the answer is NO.
Maybe I accidentily deleeted the first bit of that post which stated very slowly that it was a "reduction to absurdity" to point out why your definition was unworkable. if that was indeed missing you should have been able to work it out from the title. I am not suggesting anyone bomb anyone i am just saying that the guys definition is not one we could use in international law.
Dont pretend that i was being serious about bombing canada when my title defined that the below was a "unworkable definition"
"Shall we bomb them?"
It is a rehtorical question the answer is NO.
What the hell are you going on with anyway?
What has our Canadian police got to do with terrorism? Are you trying to convey something to the Board about Canada's police? That they are terrorists? Hell, that's rich!
What has our Canadian police got to do with terrorism? Are you trying to convey something to the Board about Canada's police? That they are terrorists? Hell, that's rich!
One valid way to prove a point is to take an argument to its logical conclusion.
and to show that you are arguing for somthign that you dont want.
I am jsut saying that the definition of terrorism that you said you supported defines canadian police as terrorists. Therefore it is rubbish.
However there is an argument to say that this is not just a reduction to absurdity. the definition of terrorism is specifically designed by countries including canada to EXCLUDE police actions.
and to show that you are arguing for somthign that you dont want.
I am jsut saying that the definition of terrorism that you said you supported defines canadian police as terrorists. Therefore it is rubbish.
However there is an argument to say that this is not just a reduction to absurdity. the definition of terrorism is specifically designed by countries including canada to EXCLUDE police actions.
There is no "logical conclusion" to quote your term.
And why are you dragging Canada into the mix? The author never mentioned Canada's police. Compared to police forces elsewhere, I can damn well assure you the word "terrorist" does not apply to ours..
If this is the best illustration you can come up with, why don't you move on to another topic somewhere else.
And why are you dragging Canada into the mix? The author never mentioned Canada's police. Compared to police forces elsewhere, I can damn well assure you the word "terrorist" does not apply to ours..
If this is the best illustration you can come up with, why don't you move on to another topic somewhere else.
Does the democratic government of nazi Germany falls under that definition or not, scottie?
! > If Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied land... Neither Israel nor you can claim that Palestine is a soveriegn country.
Which is exactly why, under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this is not an "occupation", let alone "illegal" (UNSCR 242 authorizes Israel to retain the territories until a comprehensive peace settlement is negotiated).
So you've just proven my case. Thanks.
What about terrorism? This INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION (i.e. International LAW), along with other documents, gives us a legal foundation for the terminology. As I just explained:
KL> Under International Law, states can be guilty of "war crimes". Individuals or armed groups not controlled by a state can perpetrate "terrorism".
This isn't to say that "terrorism" is better or worse than "war crimes". Obviously both can occur with different severity.
! > it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
Irrelevant. That the PA is not a signatory doesn't impact the legal understanding outlined above.
Your point is further irrelevant since the PA, in a mutual treaty (Oslo and Tenet) agreed to similar terms of extradition.
Once again we see immense levels of not just spin but outright falsehoods from "anti-Zionists", all in an effort to not just obfuscate the meaning of terrorism so as to distract from barabric acts by Arab terrorists but also in an attempt to somehow justify or rationalize these on the basis of alleged Israeli "terrorism".
Which is exactly why, under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this is not an "occupation", let alone "illegal" (UNSCR 242 authorizes Israel to retain the territories until a comprehensive peace settlement is negotiated).
So you've just proven my case. Thanks.
What about terrorism? This INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION (i.e. International LAW), along with other documents, gives us a legal foundation for the terminology. As I just explained:
KL> Under International Law, states can be guilty of "war crimes". Individuals or armed groups not controlled by a state can perpetrate "terrorism".
This isn't to say that "terrorism" is better or worse than "war crimes". Obviously both can occur with different severity.
! > it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
Irrelevant. That the PA is not a signatory doesn't impact the legal understanding outlined above.
Your point is further irrelevant since the PA, in a mutual treaty (Oslo and Tenet) agreed to similar terms of extradition.
Once again we see immense levels of not just spin but outright falsehoods from "anti-Zionists", all in an effort to not just obfuscate the meaning of terrorism so as to distract from barabric acts by Arab terrorists but also in an attempt to somehow justify or rationalize these on the basis of alleged Israeli "terrorism".
ANGIE
- If you act like an idiot, maybe you are one. Your inability to understand what I say as opposed to JA or other posters "unwillingness" to understand makes that a not entirely unlogical conclusion.
"And why are you dragging Canada into the mix? "
- how many times do I have to explain that to you? refer my point above. Everyone else understands.
Compared to police forces elsewhere, I can damn well assure you the word "terrorist" does not apply to ours..
You can? Show me.
Note there are alot of governments or people out there who you presumably want to catagorize into "terrorists" and "not-terrorists"
I want to make sure that your set of "terrorists" only includes countries that you want to be in there since calling someone a terrorist is a serious claim.
but if "in order to call israel a terrorist" you are also defining the term to include canada you cannot just add a line like -except canada which cannot be considered a terrorist because "they arent"" because it implies that your definition has a major flaw that you should address.
You however refuse to understand the question or refuse to adress the flaw.
...
Does the democratic government of nazi Germany falls under that definition or not, scottie?
- definition of a terrorist? Which definition?
I was not the one defining terrorism here. I am willing to go with the UN or the US definition.
- If you act like an idiot, maybe you are one. Your inability to understand what I say as opposed to JA or other posters "unwillingness" to understand makes that a not entirely unlogical conclusion.
"And why are you dragging Canada into the mix? "
- how many times do I have to explain that to you? refer my point above. Everyone else understands.
Compared to police forces elsewhere, I can damn well assure you the word "terrorist" does not apply to ours..
You can? Show me.
Note there are alot of governments or people out there who you presumably want to catagorize into "terrorists" and "not-terrorists"
I want to make sure that your set of "terrorists" only includes countries that you want to be in there since calling someone a terrorist is a serious claim.
but if "in order to call israel a terrorist" you are also defining the term to include canada you cannot just add a line like -except canada which cannot be considered a terrorist because "they arent"" because it implies that your definition has a major flaw that you should address.
You however refuse to understand the question or refuse to adress the flaw.
...
Does the democratic government of nazi Germany falls under that definition or not, scottie?
- definition of a terrorist? Which definition?
I was not the one defining terrorism here. I am willing to go with the UN or the US definition.
So now you're saying the UN and the US regard Canadian police forces as terrorists?
No, I am saying that they dont.
Plese review what i wrote again.
Plese review what i wrote again.
Scottie, when talking to angie and her ilk, you have to really dumb things down. Seriously. Think of what you want to say and dumb it down to its lowest common demoninator so angie and the others will have a slightly harder time taking your words and actual facts and twisting them the way they intentionally do.
good point
! > If Israel continues to build illegal settlements on occupied land... Neither Israel nor you can claim that Palestine is a soveriegn country.
Which is exactly why, under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this is not an "occupation", let alone "illegal" (UNSCR 242 authorizes Israel to retain the territories until a comprehensive peace settlement is negotiated).
So you've just proven my case. Thanks.
What about terrorism? This INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION (i.e. International LAW), along with other documents, gives us a legal foundation for the terminology. As I just explained:
KL> Under International Law, states can be guilty of "war crimes". Individuals or armed groups not controlled by a state can perpetrate "terrorism".
This isn't to say that "terrorism" is better or worse than "war crimes". Obviously both can occur with different severity.
! > it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
Irrelevant. That the PA is not a signatory doesn't impact the legal understanding outlined above.
Your point is further irrelevant since the PA, in a mutual treaty (Oslo and Tenet) agreed to similar terms of extradition.
Once again we see immense levels of not just spin but outright falsehoods from "anti-Zionists", all in an effort to not just obfuscate the meaning of terrorism so as to distract from barabric acts by Arab terrorists but also in an attempt to somehow justify or rationalize these on the basis of alleged Israeli "terrorism".
Which is exactly why, under Article 2 of the Fourth Geneva Conventions, this is not an "occupation", let alone "illegal" (UNSCR 242 authorizes Israel to retain the territories until a comprehensive peace settlement is negotiated).
So you've just proven my case. Thanks.
What about terrorism? This INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION (i.e. International LAW), along with other documents, gives us a legal foundation for the terminology. As I just explained:
KL> Under International Law, states can be guilty of "war crimes". Individuals or armed groups not controlled by a state can perpetrate "terrorism".
This isn't to say that "terrorism" is better or worse than "war crimes". Obviously both can occur with different severity.
! > it defines the extradition requirements between SIGNATORY NATIONS.
Irrelevant. That the PA is not a signatory doesn't impact the legal understanding outlined above.
Your point is further irrelevant since the PA, in a mutual treaty (Oslo and Tenet) agreed to similar terms of extradition.
Once again we see immense levels of not just spin but outright falsehoods from "anti-Zionists", all in an effort to not just obfuscate the meaning of terrorism so as to distract from barabric acts by Arab terrorists but also in an attempt to somehow justify or rationalize these on the basis of alleged Israeli "terrorism".
No KL YOU are irrelevant!
Sorry, but if you can't address what I said then you and your comments are irrelevant.
It's a waste of time debunking lies.
For every lie that's debunked carefully, there are dozen more where that came from.
Just disregard their comments and treat them as irritating flys...
they are nothing more!
For every lie that's debunked carefully, there are dozen more where that came from.
Just disregard their comments and treat them as irritating flys...
they are nothing more!
The only reason apparent that national governments will never agree on a valid 'global' all-encompassing term for 'Terrorism' or 'Acts of Terror' is simple: no government will 'willfully' discard acts that whether applied internaly or externaly may be defined as 'proscribed'.
Presently the CIA defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
While the above definition 'looks o.k.", within the 'definition' specifically omits national organizations. As if an 'act of terror' could not be nationally inspired. Typically a 'nationally inspired' 'act of terror' is in fact, 'an act of war', however, there have been significant numbers of operations which were later proven in fact to be 'black flag' operations where a third nation or group has been implicated for political purposes.
If the word is to be used, then it must be applied with equal force in all cases and circumstances and not selectively with prejudice as it is now.
Presently the CIA defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”
While the above definition 'looks o.k.", within the 'definition' specifically omits national organizations. As if an 'act of terror' could not be nationally inspired. Typically a 'nationally inspired' 'act of terror' is in fact, 'an act of war', however, there have been significant numbers of operations which were later proven in fact to be 'black flag' operations where a third nation or group has been implicated for political purposes.
If the word is to be used, then it must be applied with equal force in all cases and circumstances and not selectively with prejudice as it is now.
If nations are not obliged to abide by the definition, and all nations are infact above the law...
than weren't the nazis above the law also?
than weren't the nazis above the law also?
When they held state power, the Nazis *made* the laws.
The nazis were not guilty of "terrorism" but of "war crimes".
If you still don't understand the legal distinction between these terms, scroll up.
If you still don't understand the legal distinction between these terms, scroll up.
!
You have to propose a workable definition that excludes the people that you dont want to include.
You have to propose a workable definition that excludes the people that you dont want to include.
In regards to the terms: 'Act of Terror', 'Terrorist', 'Terrorism'
I have merely stated the following:
If the word is to be used, then it must be applied with equal force in all cases and circumstances and not selectively with prejudice as it is now.
I don't see any reference to exclusionary clauses or statements.
I have merely stated the following:
If the word is to be used, then it must be applied with equal force in all cases and circumstances and not selectively with prejudice as it is now.
I don't see any reference to exclusionary clauses or statements.
If you use the sort of definition I have seen suggested here then you have to start making arbitrary value judgements as to what are acceptible uses of coersion and which are not.
More specifically if you want to make israel a terrorist state you have a problem in regard to whether other countries are terrorist when they engage in police actions. by who's standards will you judge that? who's laws?
If you just want to include the word "war crime" under the word terrorism that doesnt reallly achieve much war crime just like terrorism both have bad images attached to them and war crime is already properly defined in international law.
More specifically if you want to make israel a terrorist state you have a problem in regard to whether other countries are terrorist when they engage in police actions. by who's standards will you judge that? who's laws?
If you just want to include the word "war crime" under the word terrorism that doesnt reallly achieve much war crime just like terrorism both have bad images attached to them and war crime is already properly defined in international law.
Scottie is right
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$160.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network