Then you either don't know the definition of terrorism or just choose not to apply it.
I know the definition. I just prefer to use the dictionary definition instead of the Bush definition.
"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"
Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers in order to "coerce" a prisoner swap. Not civilians. After Israel started shelling Civilians in Gaza and arresting and killing Hamas officials. This is an act of war, not terror. By the actual definition of the term, 90% of Israel and the United States actions are acts of terrorism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"
Not only does that perfectly fit Hezbollah's current actions, in terms of the rockets being fired into Israel, it also fits 90% of their past behavior as well. I suppose you could argue that capturing soldiers to force a prisoner swap isn't technically terrorism, since the attack was on a military target. But the lauching of rockets into populated areas of Israel is the use of violence against civilians to attain various goals, that are political, religious, and ideological in nature.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Khatchig Mouadian
ZNet, May 8, 2006
This interview was conducted by phone from Beirut on May 2, 2006.
Khatchig Mouradian- In an article entitled “Domestic Constituencies,” you say: “It is always enlightening to seek out what is omitted in propaganda campaigns.”[1] Can you expand on what is omitted in the US propaganda campaign on Lebanon and Syria after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005?
Noam Chomsky- The only thing being discussed is that there was an assassination and Syria was involved in it. How come Syria is in Lebanon in the first place? Why did the US welcome Syria in Lebanon in 1976? Why did George Bush I support Syrian presence and domination and influence in Lebanon in 1991 as part of his campaign against Iraq? Why did the US support the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Why did the US support Israel’s 22 year occupation of parts of Lebanon, an occupation in violation of Security Council resolutions? All these topics, and many others, are missing from the discussion.
In fact, the general principle is that anything that places US actions in a questionable light is omitted, with very rare exceptions. So if you blame something on an enemy, then you can discuss it, and Syria, right now is the official enemy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the charges against Syria are wrong. It just means that everything else is omitted.
K.M. - When speaking about regimes in the Middle East, you often quote the expressions “Arab façade” and “local cop on the beat.” What is the role of Lebanon in the area?
N.C. - The phrase “Arab façade” comes from the British Foreign secretary Lord Curzon after WWI. At the time, when the British were planning the organization of the Middle East, their idea was that there should be Arab façades which are apparent governments, behind which they would rule[2]. The expression “local cop on the beat” comes from the Nixon administration. It was their conception of how the Middle East should be run. There should be a peripheral region of gendarme states (Turkey, Iran under the Shah, Israel joined after the ‘67 war, Pakistan was there for a while). These states were to be the local cops on the beat while the US would be the police headquarters.
The place of Lebanon was critical. It was primarily of concern because of the transition of oil and also because it was a financial center. The US was concerned in keeping it under control to ensure that the entire Middle East energy system remains controlled. Incidentally, for the same reasons, the US has regarded Greece as part of the Near East. Greece was actually in the Near East section of the State Department until 1974, because its main role in US planning was to be part of the system by which the Middle East oil gets transported to the west. The same is true with Italy. However, Lebanon had a much more crucial role in this respect, because it is right in the center of the Middle East. The aforementioned, as well as the support for Israel’s action- Israel being a local cop on the beat- were the motivating factors behind Eisenhower’s dispatch of military forces to Lebanon in 1958.
K.M. - And what does the US administration expect from Lebanon today?
N.C. - The role of Lebanon is to be an obedient, passive state which regains its status as a financial center but accommodates to the major US policies, which do include control of the energy resources.
K.M. – What about Lebanon’s role within the context of pressuring Syria?
N.C. - The question of Syria is a separate one. Yes, Lebanon is expected to play a role for putting pressure on Syria. However, the problem for the US is that Syria is not a subordinate state. There are a lot of serious criticisms you can make about Syria, but the internal problems of that country are of no special concern to the US, which supports much more brutal governments. The problem with Syria is that it simply does not subordinate itself to the US program in the Middle East. Syria and Iran are the two countries in the region that have not accepted US economic arrangements. And the policies against such countries are similar. Take the bombing of Serbia in 1999, for example. Why was Serbia an enemy? Certainly it wasn’t because of the atrocities it was carrying out. We know that the bombing was carried out with the expectation that it would lead to a sharp escalation in atrocities. We know the answer from the highest level of the Clinton administration, and the answer was that Serbia was not adopting the proper social and economic reforms. In fact, it was the one corner of Europe which was still rejecting the socioeconomic arrangements that the US wanted to dictate for the world. The problem with Syria and Iran is more or less the same. Why is the US planning or threatening war against Iran? Is it because Iran has been aggressive? On the contrary, Iran was the target of US backed aggression. Is Iran threatening anybody? No. Is Iran more brutal and less democratic than the rest of the Arab world? It’s a joke. The problem is that Iran is not subordinating.
K.M. - In this context, why is Europe increasingly being supportive of US policies in the Middle East?
N.C. - If you look back over the past decades, a major concern of US policy –and it’s very clear in internal planning—is that Europe might strike an independent course. During the cold war period, US was afraid Europe might follow what they called “a third way,” and many mechanisms were used to inhibit any intention on the part of Europe to follow an independent course. That goes right back to the final days of World War II and its immediate aftermath, when US and Britain intervened, in some cases quite violently, to suppress the anti-fascist resistance and restore tradition structures, including fascist-Nazi collaborators. Germany was reconstructed pretty much the same way. The unwillingness to accept a unified neutral Germany in the 1950s was predicated on the same thinking. We don’t know if that would have been possible, but Stalin did offer a unified Germany which would have democratic elections which he was sure to lose, but on condition that it would not be part of a hostile military alliance. However, the US was not willing to tolerate a unified Germany. The establishment of NATO is in large part an effort to ensure European discipline and the current attempts to expand NATO are further planning of the same sort.
European elites have been, by and large, pretty satisfied with this arrangement. They’re not very different from the dominant forces in the US. They are somewhat different, but closely interrelated. There are mutual investments and business relations. The elite sectors of Europe don’t particularly object to the US policies. You can see this very strikingly in the case of Iran. The US has sought to isolate and strangle Iran for years. It had embargos and sanctions, and it has repeatedly threatened Europe to eliminate investments in Iran. The main European corporations have pretty much agreed to that. China, on the other hand, did not. China can’t be intimidated, that’s why the US government is frightened of China. But Europe backs off and pretty much follows US will. The same is true on the Israel-Palestine front. The US strongly supports Israeli takeover of the valuable parts of the occupied territories and pretty much the elimination of the possibility of any viable Palestinian state. On paper, the Europeans disagree with that and they do join the international consensus on a two-state settlement, but they don’t do anything about it. They’re not willing to stand against the US. When the US government decided to punish the Palestinians for electing the wrong party in the last elections, Europe went along, not totally, but pretty much. By and large, European elites do not see it in their interest to confront the US. They’d rather integrate with it. The problem the US is having with China, and Asia more generally, is that they don’t automatically accept US orders.
K.M. - They don’t fall in line…
N.C. - Yes, they won’t fall in line, and, especially in the case of China, they just won’t be intimidated. That’s why, if you read the latest National Security Strategy, China is identified as the major long range threat to the US. This is not because China is going to invade or attack anyone. In fact, of all the major nuclear powers, they’re the one that is the least aggressive, but they simple refuse to be intimidated, not just in their policies regarding the Middle East, but also in Latin America. While the US is trying to isolate and undermine Venezuela, China proceeds to invest in and to import from Venezuela without regard to what the US says.
The international order is in a way rather like the mafia. The godfather has to ensure that there is discipline.
Europe quietly pursues its own economic interests as long as they don’t fall in direct conflict with the US. Even in the case of Iran, although major European corporations did pull out of country, and Europe did back down on its bargain with Tehran on uranium enrichment, nevertheless, Europe does maintain economic relations with Iran. For years, the US has also tried to prevent Europe from investing in Cuba and Europe pretty much kept away, but not entirely. The US has a mixed attitude towards European investment and resource extraction in Latin America. For one thing, the US and European corporate systems are very much interlinked. The US relies on European support in many parts of the world. For Europe to invest in Latin America and import its resources is by no means as threatening to US domination as when China does.
K.M. - In one of his recent speeches, Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hizbullah, spoke of solidarity with the resistance movement in the occupied territories and with “our brother Chavez.” Let us speak about the common link that brings people on different sides of the Atlantic, and of different ideological background, together.
N.C. - The common thing that brings them together is that they do not subordinate themselves to US power. Hizbullah knows perfectly well that they’re not going to get help from Venezuela, but the fact that they are both following a course independently of US power and, in fact, in defiance to US orders, links them together.
The US has been trying, unsuccessfully, to topple the Cuban government for more than 45 years now and it remains. The rise of Chavez to power was very frightening to US elites. He has an enormous popular support. The level of support for the elected government in Venezuela has risen very sharply and it is now at the highest in Latin America. And Chavez is following an independent course. He’s doing a lot of things that the US doesn’t like a bit. For example, Argentina, which was driven to total ruin by following IMF orders, has slowly been reconstructing itself by rejecting IMF rules, and has wanted to pay off its debt to rid itself of the IMF. Chavez helped them, and he bought a substantial part of the Argentine debt. To rid oneself from the IMF means to rid oneself from one of the two modalities of control employed by the US: violence and economic force. Yesterday, Bolivia nationalized its gas reserves; the US is only (only??) opposed to that. And Bolivia was able to do that partly because of Venezuelan support.
If countries move in a direction of independent nationalism, that is regarded as unacceptable. Why did the US want to destroy Nasser? Was it because he was more violent and tyrannical than other leaders? The problem was that it was an independent secular nationalism. That just can’t be accepted.
K.M. - You talked about the Chavez government’s popularity at home. The polls show that the same is not true about the Bush Administration and its policies, both at home and abroad. Despite the discontent on a wide range of issues, little has changed in terms of US policy. How do you explain that?
N.C. - In a book that just came out, I talk about this at some length. The US has a growing and by now enormous democratic deficit at home; there’s an enormous divide between public opinion and public policy on a whole range of issues, from the health system to Iraq. The Bush administration has a very narrow grip on power- remember in the last election Bush got about 31 percent of the electorate, Kerry got 29 percent. A few changes in the votes in Ohio and it could have gone the other way- they’re using that narrow grip desperately to try to institutionalize very radical and far reaching changes in the US. They can get away with it because there’s no opposition party. If there were an opposition party, it would have totally overwhelmed the Bush administration. Every week, the Bush administration does something to shoot itself in the foot, whether it’s Hurricane Katrina, corruption scandals, or other issues, but the formal opposition party can’t make any gains. One of the most interesting things about US politics in the past years is that while support for the Bush administration, which was always very thin, has declined very sharply because of one catastrophe after the other, support for the Democrats hasn’t increased. It is increasing only as a reaction to the lack of support to the Republicans. This is because the Democrats are not presenting an alternative.
K.M. - You mentioned your recent book, Failed States. In the Afterword of that book, you say, “No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit at home is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world.” How much are these “messianic missions” helping the Bush Administration?
N.C. - They’re helping the administration among the educated classes. I discuss this in some length in the book. The messianic missions came along right after the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The invasion was only on the ground that Iraq was just about to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Well, after a few months, they discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction, so they had to find a new pretext for invading and that became the messianic mission. The intellectual classes, in Europe as well, and even in the Arab world, picked this up: the leader said it therefore we have to believe it.
Among the general population, however, I don’t think these messianic missions have much influence, except indirectly. This whole rhetoric is a weak effort, and in fact by now it’s pretty desperate.
Not only does that perfectly fit Hezbollah's current actions, in terms of the rockets being fired into Israel, it also fits 90% of their past behavior as well. I suppose you could argue that capturing soldiers to force a prisoner swap isn't technically terrorism, since the attack was on a military target. But the lauching of rockets into populated areas of Israel is the use of violence against civilians to attain various goals, that are political, religious, and ideological in nature.
I'm not denying that, however, it's no different than Israel's airstrikes. Except Israel has killed 377 people and Hezbollah has killed 37, 29 of which were soldiers. Only 3 Hezbollah militants have been killed or captured. If your going to call Hezbollah terrorists than you can go ahead and call Israel terrorists aswell.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not denying that, however, it's no different than Israel's airstrikes. Except Israel has killed 377 people and Hezbollah has killed 37, 29 of which were soldiers. Only 3 Hezbollah militants have been killed or captured. If your going to call Hezbollah terrorists than you can go ahead and call Israel terrorists aswell.
In fact, you can call Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign an act of terrorism aswell. For "shock and awe" adequately describes an act of terrorism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Only 3 Hezbollah militants have been killed or captured.
First off, that is a complete and utter bullshit stat, unless you mean specifically the airstrikes on Beirut ... And really, there's no clear way to prove how many militants die in airstrikes. At least 100 Hezbollah have died in the battles near the Isreali border, and probably more, with an unknown number of wounded.
And if one assumes that Israel is deliberately killing Lebanese civilians? Then yes, that is a terrorist act that fits the definition.
I know the definition. I just prefer to use the dictionary definition instead of the Bush definition.
"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"
Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers in order to "coerce" a prisoner swap. Not civilians. After Israel started shelling Civilians in Gaza and arresting and killing Hamas officials. This is an act of war, not terror. By the actual definition of the term, 90% of Israel and the United States actions are acts of terrorism.
God, we were about to go onto a diplomatic process (2004, I guess) with the late prime minister Hariri, those prisoners supposed to become a part of a peace agreement between Israel & Lebanon. Unfortunately, Asad's people (and some would say Hezbollah) killed him because of his intention do have peace with Israel. If Hezbollah is not a terror organization but a political party, then:
1. It had no reason to be armed since 2000.
2. Hezbollah should have tried to solve this prisoners problem via diplomacy, like prime minister Hariri did, not by kidnapping people (army resereved men, btw) inside Israel.
We arested Hamas officials after their people dig a long tunnle into Israeli territory, a place called Kerem Shalom which is a supervision point near Egypt-Palestine border (rafich) as part of Israel-Palestine authority *agreement* during the Gaza withdrawal. they did that and kill & kidnapped Israeli soliders. This is an act of terror, not war. And btw, Hamas is also a terror organization - another case of an active armed militia in the parlament.
===========
Byrnzie: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
And I would also like you to answer my question in page 7:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
God, we were about to go onto a diplomatic process (2004, I guess) with the late prime minister Hariri, those prisoners supposed to become a part of a peace agreement between Israel & Lebanon. Unfortunately, Asad's people (and some would say Hezbollah) killed him because of his intention do have peace with Israel. If Hezbollah is not a terror organization but a political party, then:
1. It had no reason to be armed since 2000.
2. Hezbollah should have tried to solve this prisoners problem via diplomacy, like prime minister Hariri did, not by kidnapping people (army resereved men, btw) inside Israel.
We arested Hamas officials after their people dig a long tunnle into Israeli territory, a place called Kerem Shalom which is a supervision point near Egypt-Palestine border (rafich) as part of Israel-Palestine authority *agreement* during the Gaza withdrawal. they did that and kill & kidnapped Israeli soliders. This is an act of terror, not war. And btw, Hamas is also a terror organization - another case of an active armed militia in the parlament.
===========
Byrnzie: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
And I would also like you to answer my question in page 7:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
The Lebonese people will not accept Israel's terms for peace. Israel always makes offers that solidify their stance on the conflicts, they simply mean that Israel wins and the Arab nations lose. If a Prime Minister of Lebanon attempts to settle on Israel's terms, it's no wonder the guy was assasinated. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes sense. Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing.
Using any other nation besides Israel as an example is diverting the problem. No other nations have the history with the arabs that Israel has.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The Lebonese people will not accept Israel's terms for peace. Israel always makes offers that solidify their stance on the conflicts, they simply mean that Israel wins and the Arab nations lose. If a Prime Minister of Lebanon attempts to settle on Israel's terms, it's no wonder the guy was assasinated. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes sense. Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing.
Using any other nation besides Israel as an example is diverting the problem. No other nations have the history with the arabs that Israel has.
Well, you seem to think that the Lebanese and the Hezbollah are the same entity, and they aren't. Anyhow, I agree with the gist ... I think both sides are going to have to make concessions if there is to be a ceasefire.
The Lebonese people will not accept Israel's terms for peace. Israel always makes offers that solidify their stance on the conflicts, they simply mean that Israel wins and the Arab nations lose. If a Prime Minister of Lebanon attempts to settle on Israel's terms, it's no wonder the guy was assasinated. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes sense. Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing.
Using any other nation besides Israel as an example is diverting the problem. No other nations have the history with the arabs that Israel has.
Really? says who, you? I suggest you should read about Hariri and his actions for Lebanon, the man considered to be the savior of the Lebanese people, and had a MASSIVE support from them. He started talking with Ariel Sharon about a peace agreement (which then included water issues as well as prisoners issues) with Israel and tried to oppose Syria & Iran. His murder ruined so many things...
"Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing" - there's no such thing, I'm sorry. If you are a political party then you should not be armed, let alone when you got an order to get rid of your arsenal - end of story.
Hezbollah are a political party, with a civilian wing and a military one. They are there - because Israel invaded Lebanon, they're there but I'm sure they don't want to be. They're only there because Israel invaded - before that, Lebanon was relatively quiet.
It may seem stange and ridiculous to you, but this "terrorism" thing has only started to occur since WWII. Before that - "terrorism" was simply the action of an opposing party - Americans vs. British - the Frech peasants vs. nobles, you wouldn't call those "peasants" terrorists. Really, it seems we didn't start calling members of the opposition "terrorists" untill after WWII.
Somehow - by dehumanizing the "terrorists" - then "we" can find a way to justify our extraordinarily aggressive counter-terrorism. I don't like it, this whole thing makes me sick. That some people - probably most are blind to the bombs we send out, yet so terrified of the opposition who weild on a scale, a pins head supply of the war machines, bombs, and terror we have.
It's important not to be sympathetic to either side - obviously both have, "the bomb." It's even more critical that we don't justify our own brand of the bomb just because it has our particular socio/cultural/economic/political symbol attached.
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Gaza and Lebanon: Connecting the Dots
by Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.):
"The United States and Israel share a similar approach to security. Both have emphasized unilateral, overpowering force or the threat of such force to try to establish absolute security from attack or even intimidation from others."
Hence:
We should force ceasefire. Or be hypocrites.
To all those who still think there is rational behind counter-terrorism... to believe such a thing as counter-terrorism is rational, you probably believe a lot of thing's in the Bible as well, well:
Matthew7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Don't be a hypocrite - don't trust the U.S. or Israel... or Hamas or Hezbollah... or Russia or China.... or Iran or Syria... or... you get the picture?
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Gaza and Lebanon: Connecting the Dots
by Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.):
"The United States and Israel share a similar approach to security. Both have emphasized unilateral, overpowering force or the threat of such force to try to establish absolute security from attack or even intimidation from others."
Hence:
We should force ceasefire. Or be hypocrites.
To all those who still think there is rational behind counter-terrorism... to believe such a thing as counter-terrorism is rational, you probably believe a lot of thing's in the Bible as well, well:
Matthew7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Don't be a hypocrite - don't trust the U.S. or Israel... or Hamas or Hezbollah... or Russia or China.... or Iran or Syria... or... you get the picture?
Cease-fire.
So someone who doesn't believe in the Bible is now quoting the Bible to others?
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
So someone who doesn't believe in the Bible is now quoting the Bible to others?
Quite clearly yes.
The Bible... is a thing - I believe that it is a thing, a book filled with a rather amazingly contradictory cacophony of passages... yes.
I do not believe that I have to follow it... which in it's current edit - would be quite impossible, imagine the amazing variety of people I'd have to kill in God's name! (Old Testament God - the new testament one seems to have become a copy of a copy, say it with me - simulacrum -, his sons' word that he is rather than being represented by direct action, hence nobody except Jesus seems to believe in... "him.") I do not think for a moment that anyone should "follow" or "believe" the Bible, and do not nor have I ever once rthought the Bible is all good.
Having made my view quite clear - I have read plenty of it, and I do find little nuggets of wisdom here and there which I am quite free to "agree with" or "believe in."
Hezbollah are a political party, with a civilian wing and a military one
Which is why Hezbollah IS aterror organization, you can't be a political praty AND have your OWN army, let alone if you were ordered to get rid of your arsenal in 2000 (after Israel moved out of Lebanon). Lebanon is a sovereign country with an official army, Hezbollah has no reason or right to exist as an armed force within Lebanon, period.
Who are the Global Terrorists?
Noam Chomsky
Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, May, 2002
After the atrocities of 11 September, the victim declared a "war on terrorism," targeting not just the suspected perpetrators, but the country in which they were located, and others charged with terrorism worldwide. President Bush pledged to "rid the world of evildoers" and "not let evil stand," echoing Ronald Reagan's denunciation of the "evil scourge of terrorism" in 1985 -- specifically, state-supported international terrorism, which had been declared to be the core issue of US foreign policy as his administration came into office.NOTE{_New York Times_, Oct. 18, 1985.} The focal points of the first war on terror were the Middle East and Central America, where Honduras was the major base for US operations. The military component of the re-declared war is led by Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Reagan's special representative to the Middle East; the diplomatic efforts at the UN by John Negroponte, Reagan's Ambassador to Honduras. Planning is largely in the hands of other leading figures of the Reagan-Bush (I) administrations.
The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil.
The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
The first war received strong endorsement. The UN General Assembly condemned international terrorism two months after Reagan's denunciation, again in much stronger and more explicit terms in 1987. NOTE{GA Res. 40/61, 9 Dec. 1985; Res. 42/159, 7 Dec. 1987.} Support was not unanimous, however. The 1987 resolution passed 153-2, Honduras abstaining. Explaining their negative vote, the US and Israel identified the fatal flaw: the statement that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation..." That was understood to apply to the struggle of the African National Congress against the Apartheid regime of South Africa (a US ally, while the ANC was officially labelled a "terrorist organization"); and to the Israeli military occupation, then in its 20th year, sustained by US military and diplomatic support in virtual international isolation. Presumably because of US opposition, the UN resolution against terrorism was ignored. NOTE{See my _Necessary Illusions_ (Boston: South End, 1989), chap. 4; my essay in Alex George, ed., _Western State Terrorism_ (Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell, 1991).}
Reagan's 1985 condemnation referred specifically to terrorism in the Middle East, selected as the lead story of 1985 in an AP poll. But for Secretary of State George Shultz, the administration moderate, the most "alarming" manifestation of "state-sponsored terrorism," a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age," was frighteningly close to home. There is "a cancer, right here in our land mass," Shultz informed Congress, threatening to conquer the hemisphere in a "revolution without borders," a interesting fabrication exposed at once but regularly reiterated with appropriate shudders. NOTE{Shultz, "Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies," June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589); "Terrorism and the Modern World," Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629). Shultz's congressional testimony, 1986, 1983, the former part of a major campaign to gain more funding for the contras; see Jack Spence and Eldon Kenworthy in Thomas Walker, ed., _Reagan versus the Sandinistas_ (Boulder, London: Westview, 1987).}
So severe was the threat that on Law Day (1 May) 1985, the President announced an embargo "in response to the emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Central America." He also declared a national emergency, renewed annually, because "the policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
"The terrorists -- and the other states that aid and abet them -- serve as grim reminders that democracy is fragile and needs to be guarded with vigilance," Shultz warned. We must "cut [the Nicaraguan cancer] out," and not by gentle means: "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table," Shultz declared, condemning those who advocate "utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation." The US was exercising "the power element of the equation" with mercenary forces based in Honduras, under Negroponte's supervision, and successfully blocking the "utopian, legalistic means" pursued by the World Court and the Latin American Contadora nations -- as Washington continued to do until its terrorist wars were won. NOTE{Shultz, "Moral Principles and Strategic Interests," April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820).}
Reagan's condemnation of the "evil scourge" was issued at a meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who arrived to join in the call to extirpate the evil shortly after he had sent his bombers to attack Tunis, killing 75 people with smart bombs that tore them to shreds among other atrocities recorded by the prominent Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk on the scene. Washington cooperated by failing to warn its ally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way. Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that Washington "had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action," but drew back when the Security Council unanimously denounced the bombing as an "act of armed aggression" (US abstaining).NOTE{_NYT_, Oct. 17, 18; Kapeliouk, _Yediot Ahronot_, Nov. 15, 1985. Foreknowledge, _Los Angeles Times_, Oct. 3; Geoffrey Jansen, _Middle East International_, Oct 11, 1985. Bernard Gwertzman, _NYT_, Oct. 2, 7, 1985.}
A second candidate for most extreme act of Mideast international terrorism in the peak year of 1985 is a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. The bomb was placed outside a Mosque, timed to explode when worshippers left. "About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast," Nora Boustany reported. The bomb also "burned babies in their beds," killed children "as they walked home from the mosque," and "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb. The target was a Shi'ite leader accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The crime was organized by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of British intelligence. NOTE{Boustany, _Washington Post Weekly_, March 14, 1988; Bob Woodward, _Veil_ (Simon & Schuster, 1987, 396f.).}
The only other competitor for the prize is the "Iron Fist" operations that Peres directed in March in occupied Lebanon, reaching new depths of "calculated brutality and arbitrary murder," a Western diplomat familiar with the area observed, as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shelled villages, carted off the male population, killed dozens of villagers in addition to many massacred by the IDF's paramilitary associates, shelled hospitals and took patients away for "interrogation," along with numerous other atrocities. NOTE{_Guardian_, March 6, 1985. For details and sources, see my "Middle East Terrorism and the American Ideological System," in _Pirates and Emperors_ (New York: Claremont 1986; Montreal: Black Rose, 1988), reprinted in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds., _Blaming the Victims_ (London: Verso, 1988).} The IDF high command described the targets as "terrorist villagers." The operations against them must continue, the military correspondent of the _Jerusalem Post_ (Hirsh Goodman) added, because the IDF must "maintain order and security" in occupied Lebanon despite "the price the inhabitants will have to pay."
Like Israel's invasion of Lebanon 3 years earlier, leaving some 18,000 killed, these actions and others in Lebanon were not undertaken in self-defense but rather for political ends, as recognized at once in Israel. The same was true, almost entirely, of those that followed, up to Peres's murderous invasion of 1996. But all relied crucially on US military and diplomatic support. Accordingly, they too do not enter the annals of international terrorism.
In brief, there was nothing odd about the proclamations of the leading co-conspirators in Mideast international terrorism, which therefore passed without comment at the peak moment of horror at the "return to barbarism."
The well-remembered prize-winner for 1985 is the hijacking of the _Achille Lauro_ and brutal murder of a passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, doubtless a vile terrrorist act, and surely not justified by the claim that it was in retaliation for the far worse Tunis atrocities and a pre-emptive effort to deter others. Adopting moral truisms, the same holds of our own acts of retaliation or pre-emption.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find....
...The same convention applies to the war to exterminate the Nicaraguan cancer. On Law Day 1984, President Reagan proclaimed that without law there can be only "chaos and disorder." The day before, he had announced that the US would disregard the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, which went on to condemn his administration for its "unlawful use of force," ordering it to terminate these international terrorist crimes and pay substantial reparations to Nicaragua (June 1986). The Court decision was dismissed with contempt, as was a subsequent Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law (vetoed by the US) and repeated General Assembly resolutions (US and Israel opposed, in one case joined by El Salvador).
As the Court decision was announced, Congress substantially increased funding for the mercenary forces engaged in "the unlawful use of force." Shortly after, the US command directed them to attack "soft targets" -- undefended civilian targets -- and to avoid combat with the Nicaraguan army, as they could do, thanks to US control of the skies and the sophisticated communication equipment provided to the terrorist forces. The tactic was considered reasonable by prominent commentators as long as it satisfied "the test of cost-benefit analysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end" -- "democracy" as Western elites understand the term, an interpretation illustrated graphically in the region. NOTE{For details, see my _Culture of Terrorism_ (Boston: South End, 1988), 77f.}
State Department Legal Advisor Abraham Sofaer explained why the US was entitled to reject ICJ jurisdiction. In earlier years, most members of the UN "were aligned with the United States and shared its views regarding world order." But since decolonization a "majority often opposes the United States on important international questions." Accordingly, we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States" -- in this case, the terrorist acts against Nicaragua condemned by the Court and the Security Council. For similar reasons, since the 1960s the US has been far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues, Britain second, France a distant third.NOTE{Sofaer, _The United States and the World Court_ (State Dept. Current Policy 769), Dec. 1985.}
Washington waged its "war on terrorism" by creating an international terror network of unprecedented scale, and employing it worldwide, with lethal and long-lasting effects. In Central America, terror guided and supported by the US reached its most extreme levels in countries where the state security forces themselves were the immediate agents of international terrorism. The effects were reviewed in a 1994 conference organized by Salvadoran Jesuits, whose experiences had been particularly gruesome. NOTE{Juan Hern ndez Pico, _Env¡o_ (Universidad Centroamericana, Managua), March 1994.} The conference report takes particular note of the effects of the residual "culture of terror...in domesticating the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different to those of the powerful," an important observation on the efficacy of state terror that generalizes broadly. In Latin America, the 11 September atrocities were harshly condemned, but commonly with the observation that they are nothing new. They may be described as "Armageddon," the research journal of the Jesuit university in Managua observed, but Nicaragua has "lived its own Armageddon in excruciating slow motion" under US assault "and is now submerged in its dismal aftermath," and others fared far worse under the vast plague of state terror that swept through the continent from the early 1960s, much of it traceable to Washington. NOTE{_Env¡o_, Oct. 2001. For a judicious review of the aftermath, see Thomas Walker and Ariel Armony, eds., _Repression, Resistance, and Democratic Transition in Central America_ (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 2000).}
It is hardly surprising that Washington's call for support in its war of revenge for 11 Sept. had little resonance in Latin America. An international Gallup poll found that support for military force rather than extradition ranged from 2% (Mexico) to 11% (Venezuela and Colombia). Condemnations of the 11 Sept. terror were regularly accompanied by recollections of their own suffering, for example, the death of perhaps thousands of poor people (Western crimes, therefore unexamined) when George Bush I bombed the barrio Chorillo in Panama in December 1989 in Operation Just Cause, undertaken to kidnap a disobedient thug who was sentenced to life imprisonment in Florida for crimes mostly committed while he was on the CIA payroll. NOTE{_Env¡o_, Oct. 2001; Panamanian journalist Ricardo Stevens, NACLA _Report on the Americas_, Nov/Dec 2001.}
The record continues to the present without essential change, apart from modification of pretexts and tactics. The list of leading recipients of US arms yields ample evidence, familiar to those acquainted with international human rights reports.
It therefore comes as no surprise that President Bush informed Afghans that bombing will continue until they hand over people the US suspects of terrorism (rebuffing requests for evidence and tentative offers of negotiation). Or, when new war aims were added after three weeks of bombing, that Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of the British Defense Staff, warned Afghans that US-UK attacks will continue "until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed." NOTE {Patrick Tyler and Elisabeth Bumiller, _NYT_, Oct. 12; Michael Gordon, _NYT_, Oct. 28, 2001; both p. 1.} In other words, the US and UK will persist in "the calculated use of violence to attain goals that are political... in nature...": international terrorism in the technical sense, but excluded from the canon by the standard convention. The rationale is essentially that of the US-Israel international terrorist operations in Lebanon. Admiral Boyce is virtually repeating the words of the eminent Israeli statesman Abba Eban, as Reagan declared the first war on terrorism. Replying to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's account of atrocities in Lebanon committed under the Labor government in the style "of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name," Eban acknowledged the accuracy of the account, but added the standard justification: "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." NOTE{_Jerusalem Post_, Aug. 16, 1981.}
These concepts are conventional, as is the resort to terrorism when deemed appropriate. Furthermore, its success is openly celebrated. The devastation caused by US terror operations in Nicaragua was described quite frankly, leaving Americans "United in Joy" at their successful outcome, the press proclaimed. The massacre of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in 1965, mostly landless peasants, was greeted with unconstrained euphoria, along with praise for Washington for concealing its own critical role, which might have embarrassed the "Indonesian moderates" who had cleansed their society in a "staggering mass slaughter" (_New York Times_) that the CIA compared to the crimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. NOTE{For extensive review, see my _Necessary Illusions_ and _Deterring Democracy_ (London: Verso, 1991) (Nicaragua); _Year 501_ (Boston: South End, 1993) (Indonesia).} There are many other examples. One might wonder why Osama bin Laden's disgraceful exultation over the atrocities of 11 Sept. occasioned indignant surprise. But that would be an error, based on failure to distinguish their terror, which is evil, from ours, which is noble, the operative principle throughout history.
If we keep to official definitions, it is a serious error to describe terrorism as the weapon of the weak. Like most weapons, it is wielded to far greater effect by the strong. But then it is not terror; rather, "counterterror," or "low intensity warfare," or "self-defense"; and if successful, "rational" and "pragmatic," and an occasion to be "united in joy."
Let us turn to the question of proper response to the crime, bearing in mind the governing moral truism. If, for example, Admiral Boyce's dictum is legitimate, then victims of Western state terrorism are entitled to act accordingly. That conclusion is, properly, regarded as outrageous. Therefore the principle is outrageous when applied to official enemies, even more so when we recognize that the actions were undertaken with the expectation that they would place huge numbers of people at grave risk. No knowledgeable authority seriously questioned the UN estimate that "7.5 million Afghans will need food over the winter -- 2.5 million more than on Sept. 11," NOTE{Elisabeth Bumiller and Elizabeth Becker, _NYT_, Oct. 17, 2001.} a 50% increase as a result of the threat of bombing, then the actuality, with a toll that will never be investigated if history is any guide.
A different proposal, put forth by the Vatican among others, was spelled out by military historian Michael Howard: "a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations...against a criminal conspiracy whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, be awarded an appropriate sentence." NOTE{_Foreign Affairs_, Jan/Feb 2002; talk of Oct. 30. See Tania Branigan, _Guardian_, Oct. 31, 2001.} Though never contemplated, the proposal seems reasonable. If so, then it would be reasonable if applied to Western state terrorism, something that could also never be contemplated, though for opposite reasons.
The war in Afghanistan has commonly been described as a "just war," indeed evidently so. There have been some attempts to frame a concept of "just war" that might support the judgment. We may therefore ask how these proposals fare when evaluated in terms of the same moral truism. I have yet to see one that does not instantly collapse: application of the proposed concept to Western state terrorism would be considered unthinkable, if not despicable. For example, we might ask how the proposals would apply to the one case that is uncontroversial in the light of the judgments of the highest international authorities, Washington's war against Nicaragua; uncontroversial, that is, among those who have some commitment to international law and treaty obligations. It is an instructive experiment.
Similar questions arise in connection with other aspects of the wars on terrorism. There has been debate over whether the US-UK war in Afghanistan was authorized by ambiguous Security Council resolutions, but it is beside the point. The US surely could have obtained clear and unambiguous authorization, not for attractive reasons (consider why Russia and China eagerly joined the coalition, hardly obscure). But that course was rejected, presumably because it would suggest that there is some higher authority to which the US should defer, a condition that a state with overwhelming power is not likely to accept. There is even a name for that stance in the literature of diplomacy and international relations: establishing "credibility," a standard official justification for the resort to violence, the bombing of Serbia, to mention a recent example. The refusal to consider negotiated transfer of the suspected perpetrators presumably had the same grounds.
The moral truism applies to such matters as well. The US refuses to extradite terrorists even when their guilt has been well established. One current case involves Emmanuel Constant, the leader of the Haitian paramilitary forces that were responsible for thousands of brutal killings in the early 1990s under the military junta, which Washington officially opposed but tacitly supported, publicly undermining the OAS embargo and secretly authorizing oil shipments. Constant was sentenced in absentia by a Haitian court. The elected government has repeatedly called on the US to extradite him, again on September 30, 2001, while Taliban initiatives to negotiate transfer of bin Laden were being dismissed with contempt. Haiti's request was again ignored, probably because of concerns about what Constant might reveal about ties to the US government during the period of the terror. Do we therefore conclude that Haiti has the right to use force to compel his extradition, following as best it can Washington's model in Afghanistan? The very idea is outrageous, yielding another prima facie violation of the moral truism.
It is all too easy to add illustrations. NOTE{For a sample, see George, _op. cit._. Exceptions are rare, and the reactions they elicit are not without interest.} Consider Cuba, probably the main target of international terrorism since 1959, remarkable in scale and character, some of it exposed in declassified documents on Kennedy's Operation Mongoose and continuing to the late 1990s. Cold War pretexts were ritually offered as long as that was possible, but internally the story was the one commonly unearthed on inquiry. It was recounted in secret by Arthur Schlesinger, reporting the conclusions of JFK's Latin American mission to the incoming President: the Cuban threat is "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands," which might stimulate the "poor and underprivileged" in other countries, who "are now demanding opportunities for a decent living" -- the "virus" or "rotten apple" effect, as it is called in high places The Cold War connection was that "the Soviet Union hovers in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single generation." NOTE{_FRUS_, 1961-63, vol. XII, American Republics, 13f., 33.}
True, these exploits of international terrorism -- which were quite serious -- are excluded by the standard convention. But suppose we keep to the official definition. In accord with the theories of "just war" and proper response, how has Cuba been entitled to react?
It is fair enough to denounce international terrorism as a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself." The commitment to "drive the evil from the world" can even be taken seriously, if it satisfies moral truisms -- not, it would seem, an entirely unreasonable thought.
Byrnzie YOU still haven't answered my question from last page, only kept bringing Chomsky's articales. here it is, for the third time:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
========
And once again: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not necessarily facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
Yeah - I think what Byrnzie is trying to say, through the passages of Chomsky is,
"Remember the photograph of Donald Rummsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand with a shit eating grin on his face?"
Well guess what - which one had the shit eating grin?
They both did, because they're both pawns of some grand power structure - that constantly plans and dictates laws, which it then breaks and recreates - that organism we call the military-industrial complex. All this war, this is all planned out in advance.
Do you think Israel could have focused all its troops and guns and forces overnight? They could have - because they knew the enemies moves in advance, they're all planned out on a chessboard (so to say.)
They know what is comming and they know when it'll hit the fan - they allow this shit to happen so that they can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of thier Orwellian brains. For power, for control over thier guilt and desperation - because ages of living surrogate to the military-industrial system has drowned thier normal sense of human compassion and anchored it down with a - again, rather Orwellian system of guilt, punishment, vitriolic temperment, lies, and deep seated subjugation.
All is war. Unless you've found a way out, unless you're anti-war.
Do you think the Israeli army is panicking over the innocent civilian lives they've vicariously taken? The majority are bred to accept them, their murders are cleaner than the rest, theirs are forgivable and forgettable as long as they've established some just cause that can transform thier killing into an Orwellian sense of compassion. The cause of the army is just doublethink, think about that next time they've bombed another country in "defense." This counter-terror doesn't make sense. It's terrorism either way. It's us or it's them.
Byrnzie YOU still haven't answered my question from last page, only kept bringing Chomsky's articales. here it is, for the third time:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
British soldiers have been kidnapped in Iraq. British civilians have been kidnapped in Iraq. Beheaded. Tortured, for the world to see.
The British government does nothing when this happens. This is very sad, especially as the logistics of the capture are of a desperate and unrealistic nature (the captors demand withdrawl of troops from Iraq, etc).
In the case of Israel, the captors want the release of innocent civilians and refugees which Israel are breaking human rights laws by keeping as prisoners. If they are terrorists, fine. Prove it. But release the innocents.
To me, that is not unreasonable. I can understand that kidnappings are childish and somewhat catastrophic, but if Israel were to comply they would solve a lot of problems. However, Israel wouldn't do anything like that because it would mean being fair and giving the palestinians justice, which israel hates and despises.
And no, Hezbollah does not have the right to do such things. But neither does Israel. The ridiculous use of destruction is showing the world what they are: callous, crazy bastards that rather than target the enemy, they target civilans.
Byrnzie YOU still haven't answered my question from last page, only kept bringing Chomsky's articales. here it is, for the third time:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
========
And once again: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not necessarily facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
War is insane and each opposing party is equally responsible for every atrocity, every time. Human beings haven't evolved over thousands of years and struggled to survive countless wars before - just so we can go on building bigger bombs, more weapons, and killing more people - humanity needs to learn it's lesson, right now. We're able to stop war. ...
Do you think Israel could have focused all its troops and guns and forces overnight? They could have - because they knew the enemies moves in advance, they're all planned out on a chessboard (so to say.)
You are insane. I guess you haven't heared about intelligence, ha? not to mention we began with nothing but the air force, ground troops came much later because there wasn't any plane. You are actually claiming we let our army reserve soliders to be kidnapped, and others to be killed by a group of terrorists just so we "can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of our Orwellian brains"?
God, you are a crazy miserable person. If we had a plane things would have looked better, hence there were 400 dead terrorists, not civilians.
Get a life, And some psychological help do deal with your conspiracy theories. What's next, black people slavery didn't happen? How pathetic.
"British soldiers have been kidnapped in Iraq. British civilians have been kidnapped in Iraq":
Not by the Hezbollah, but by *Iraqi* armed forces.
"In the case of Israel, the captors want the release of innocent civilians and refugees which Israel are breaking human rights laws by keeping as prisoners. If they are terrorists, fine. Prove it. But release the innocents"
If Hezbollah wasn't a terror organization but a real political party, they should have tried using diplomacy first. And we don't need to prove anything - it is considered to be a terror organization by deffinition across the globe.
btw, those prisoners are mostly Hezbollah people, hence nothing close to "innocent civilians".
"To me, that is not unreasonable. I can understand that kidnappings are childish and somewhat catastrophic, but if Israel were to comply they would solve a lot of problems. However, Israel wouldn't do anything like that because it would mean being fair and giving the palestinians justice, which israel hates and despises"
Lebanon and Palestine are not related - different stories, different areas, but the same terror actions by Hamas & Hezbollah - "political parties" who are also acting as an armed forces, crossing Israeli border to kidnap and kill patrol soliders / army reserve soliders.
"And no, Hezbollah does not have the right to do such things" - Just what I wanted to hear, thank you.
"But neither does Israel" - News flash: we moved out of Lebanon in 2000, those prisoners (Hezbollah people = terrorists) were captured during the Lebanese war, and the release of most of them was included in what should have been Israel-Lebanon peace agreement. unfortunately Syria & Hezbollah didn't want Lebanon to have peace with us, so they killed the Lebanese prime minister Hariri.
"The ridiculous use of destruction is showing the world what they are: callous, crazy bastards that rather than target the enemy, they target civilans":
you also ment to Hezbollah's actions, right? or maybe you are also one of these one-sided persons? our response was unavoidable, but yet non measured. Hezbollah's action was avoidable & non measured. Deal with that.
Byrnzie YOU still haven't answered my question from last page, only kept bringing Chomsky's articales. here it is, for the third time:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
========
And once again: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not necessarily facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
Firstly, I didn't see your post on the previous page. Secondly, if you have a criticism of a particular point that Chomsky makes in the above article then please share it with us. And thirdly, if British or U.S soldiers were attacked by Hizbollah whilst engaging in an illegal military occupation of a soveriegn nation then I'd say that the British and U.S forces should leave. If Britain left Iraq but then decided to occupy, for example, Ireland, and proceeded to terrorize the Irish and subject them to daily humliations whilst bulldozing their homes and killing them at will, and Hizbollah then kidnapped some British soldiers and atempted to, in some way, assist the Irish, I'd understand, and in fact sympathise with Hizbollah. This is because I don't care a fuck about the criminal activities of my goverment and because I believe that human beings should aspire to some form of justice in this world. And justice should be universal and not dependent on race, creed, or 'country' - whatever 'country' means.
P.s, you really should read the above article by Chomsky. I think you'd find it useful.
You are insane. I guess you haven't heared about intelligence, ha? not to mention we began with nothing but the air force, ground troops came much later because there wasn't any plane. You are actually claiming we let our army reserve soliders to be kidnapped, and others to be killed by a group of terrorists just so we "can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of our Orwellian brains"?
God, you are a crazy miserable person. If we had a plane things would have looked better, hence there were 400 dead terrorists, not civilians.
Get a life, And some psychological help do deal with your conspiracy theories. What's next, black people slavery didn't happen? How pathetic.
No.
I was HEAVILY GENERALIZING.
Where as you are hastily drawing conclusions about my opinions out of your ass.
I didn't say anything to the effect of:
a) my ignorance of intelligence - drawn out your ass
b) air force / ground troops = same thing, "force." - unjustified
c) "we" - not sure who you're refering to - sent our troops into combat, if they get kidnaped, well shucks, they got kidnapped with guns in thier hands and sights on the "enemy," well, yeah that sucks - but that's war.
d) Yes - we enter into war, knowing our side will experience losses/fatalities - hence, yes - we "can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of our Orwellian brains" because we are sending our troops to die.
e) I try not to be crazy or miserable - again you pulled that one out your ass
f) your statement about "having a plane then thing's would have looked better," totaly confounds me, I can't quite grasp what you're getting to.
g) 400 dead terrorists? where did you get that number? I've looked - I've been looking for 15 min now...
anyway - to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT I WAS SAYING,
"An eye for an eye leave the whole world blind." Wrap your mind around that one, bask in it's relative simplicity and relevant sincerity.
Israel...
god damn, not innocent here:
Israeli bombs and shells have killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians in the last few days and more than 89 Palestinians since June 25, 2006 while injuring hundreds more civilians in both countries;
Israel has bombed buses and cars carrying desperate civilians in Lebanon;
Israel has declared that “no place is safe” in Lebanon;
Israel has destroyed every road and bridge from the South to Beirut;
Israel has bombed the international highway between Damascus and Beirut as well as the airport and vital civilian infrastructure;
Israel has destroyed vital infrastructure including power plant, bridges and municipal
facilities in Gaza;
Israel has arrested and is detaining at least 65 elected Palestinian government officials...
They are killing civilians - not only terrorists. Just like Americans have killed thousand of innocent, completely innocent Iraqi civilians - as well as a few terrorists. The ends don't justify the means. Israel and U.S.A. have no right to call themselves just when thier atrocities more or less equal those of thier... our enemies. This whole thing is Orwellian, you've probably just not read the book.
Firstly, I didn't see your post on the previous page. Secondly, if you have a criticism of a particular point that Chomsky makes in the above article then please share it with us. And thirdly, if British or U.S soldiers were attacked by Hizbollah whilst engaging in an illegal military occupation of a soveriegn nation then I'd say that the British and U.S forces should leave. If Britain left Iraq but then decided to occupy, for example, Ireland, and proceeded to terrorize the Irish and subject them to daily humliations whilst bulldozing their homes and killing them at will, and Hizbollah then kidnapped some British soldiers and atempted to, in some way, assist the Irish, I'd understand, and in fact sympathise with Hizbollah. This is because I don't care a fuck about the criminal activities of my goverment and because I believe that human beings should aspire to some form of justice in this world. And justice should be universal and not dependent on race, creed, or 'country' - whatever 'country' means.
Hi,
1. There is no chance I'll listen to such a one sided-black or white person. Chomsky or Marzel - as far as I'm concerned they are basically the same. I'de rather find my answers in Al Jazeera, main news sites and... outside my window, since I'm living here in Haifa, the symbole of co-existence.
(sorry, a few missiles has just targeted the area near my house, I'll keep on writing later)
1. There is no chance I'll listen to such a one sided-black or white person. Chomsky or Marzel - as far as I'm concerned they are basically the same. I'de rather find my answers in Al Jazeera, main news sites and... outside my window, since I'm living here in Haifa, the symbole of co-existence.
(sorry, a few missiles has just targeted the area near my house, I'll keep on writing later)
Whoa buddy.
Sorry, I'm going to outright put my politics where my ass is and sit on them for a while, while I wish you good health and hopefully safety.
As I put my shoes on to go on a morning jog, I turned the TV on and the "Life Wasted" video was on:
"You're always saying you're too weak to be strong."
Why can't Israel be strong enough to say, that is enough - no more violence. THAT WOULD DISCREDIT THE TERRORISTS - THAT WOULD BE THE SIGN OF THE STRONG MAN WINNING THE WAR BY ACHIEVING PEACE FIRST - THAT WOULD BE THE CRITERION OF CIVILIZATION FOR THE REST, THE TERRORISTS TO FOLLOW.
If war were too low for the superpowers... then what use would it be for the terrorists?
If the terrorists knew the superpowers would not fight back... then would they attack? If you believe they are truly animals, unreasonable opponents of civilisation, then maybe they still would... But they're not - they're defending themselves just as equally as Israel and the other superpowers defend us.
Sorry, I'm going to outright put my politics where my ass is and sit on them for a while, while I wish you good health and hopefully safety.
Again, best intentions.
I am shocked. One of the missiles went into the yard of what was once my old house. I've got friends who still live there. One of them own a little local supermarket, right next to the hit-spot. He is OK, don't know how. Another was on her way to get inside the house when she heared the alarm. She was minor injured. Others were taken to the hospital cause of anxiety. Lots of ambulances, lots of police cars.
There were 16 missiles in this latest attack across Haifa. I don't know what to do. I just don't know.
Comments
I know the definition. I just prefer to use the dictionary definition instead of the Bush definition.
"the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear"
Hezbollah attacked Israeli soldiers in order to "coerce" a prisoner swap. Not civilians. After Israel started shelling Civilians in Gaza and arresting and killing Hamas officials. This is an act of war, not terror. By the actual definition of the term, 90% of Israel and the United States actions are acts of terrorism.
Not only does that perfectly fit Hezbollah's current actions, in terms of the rockets being fired into Israel, it also fits 90% of their past behavior as well. I suppose you could argue that capturing soldiers to force a prisoner swap isn't technically terrorism, since the attack was on a military target. But the lauching of rockets into populated areas of Israel is the use of violence against civilians to attain various goals, that are political, religious, and ideological in nature.
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Khatchig Mouadian
ZNet, May 8, 2006
This interview was conducted by phone from Beirut on May 2, 2006.
Khatchig Mouradian- In an article entitled “Domestic Constituencies,” you say: “It is always enlightening to seek out what is omitted in propaganda campaigns.”[1] Can you expand on what is omitted in the US propaganda campaign on Lebanon and Syria after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005?
Noam Chomsky- The only thing being discussed is that there was an assassination and Syria was involved in it. How come Syria is in Lebanon in the first place? Why did the US welcome Syria in Lebanon in 1976? Why did George Bush I support Syrian presence and domination and influence in Lebanon in 1991 as part of his campaign against Iraq? Why did the US support the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Why did the US support Israel’s 22 year occupation of parts of Lebanon, an occupation in violation of Security Council resolutions? All these topics, and many others, are missing from the discussion.
In fact, the general principle is that anything that places US actions in a questionable light is omitted, with very rare exceptions. So if you blame something on an enemy, then you can discuss it, and Syria, right now is the official enemy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the charges against Syria are wrong. It just means that everything else is omitted.
K.M. - When speaking about regimes in the Middle East, you often quote the expressions “Arab façade” and “local cop on the beat.” What is the role of Lebanon in the area?
N.C. - The phrase “Arab façade” comes from the British Foreign secretary Lord Curzon after WWI. At the time, when the British were planning the organization of the Middle East, their idea was that there should be Arab façades which are apparent governments, behind which they would rule[2]. The expression “local cop on the beat” comes from the Nixon administration. It was their conception of how the Middle East should be run. There should be a peripheral region of gendarme states (Turkey, Iran under the Shah, Israel joined after the ‘67 war, Pakistan was there for a while). These states were to be the local cops on the beat while the US would be the police headquarters.
The place of Lebanon was critical. It was primarily of concern because of the transition of oil and also because it was a financial center. The US was concerned in keeping it under control to ensure that the entire Middle East energy system remains controlled. Incidentally, for the same reasons, the US has regarded Greece as part of the Near East. Greece was actually in the Near East section of the State Department until 1974, because its main role in US planning was to be part of the system by which the Middle East oil gets transported to the west. The same is true with Italy. However, Lebanon had a much more crucial role in this respect, because it is right in the center of the Middle East. The aforementioned, as well as the support for Israel’s action- Israel being a local cop on the beat- were the motivating factors behind Eisenhower’s dispatch of military forces to Lebanon in 1958.
K.M. - And what does the US administration expect from Lebanon today?
N.C. - The role of Lebanon is to be an obedient, passive state which regains its status as a financial center but accommodates to the major US policies, which do include control of the energy resources.
K.M. – What about Lebanon’s role within the context of pressuring Syria?
N.C. - The question of Syria is a separate one. Yes, Lebanon is expected to play a role for putting pressure on Syria. However, the problem for the US is that Syria is not a subordinate state. There are a lot of serious criticisms you can make about Syria, but the internal problems of that country are of no special concern to the US, which supports much more brutal governments. The problem with Syria is that it simply does not subordinate itself to the US program in the Middle East. Syria and Iran are the two countries in the region that have not accepted US economic arrangements. And the policies against such countries are similar. Take the bombing of Serbia in 1999, for example. Why was Serbia an enemy? Certainly it wasn’t because of the atrocities it was carrying out. We know that the bombing was carried out with the expectation that it would lead to a sharp escalation in atrocities. We know the answer from the highest level of the Clinton administration, and the answer was that Serbia was not adopting the proper social and economic reforms. In fact, it was the one corner of Europe which was still rejecting the socioeconomic arrangements that the US wanted to dictate for the world. The problem with Syria and Iran is more or less the same. Why is the US planning or threatening war against Iran? Is it because Iran has been aggressive? On the contrary, Iran was the target of US backed aggression. Is Iran threatening anybody? No. Is Iran more brutal and less democratic than the rest of the Arab world? It’s a joke. The problem is that Iran is not subordinating.
K.M. - In this context, why is Europe increasingly being supportive of US policies in the Middle East?
N.C. - If you look back over the past decades, a major concern of US policy –and it’s very clear in internal planning—is that Europe might strike an independent course. During the cold war period, US was afraid Europe might follow what they called “a third way,” and many mechanisms were used to inhibit any intention on the part of Europe to follow an independent course. That goes right back to the final days of World War II and its immediate aftermath, when US and Britain intervened, in some cases quite violently, to suppress the anti-fascist resistance and restore tradition structures, including fascist-Nazi collaborators. Germany was reconstructed pretty much the same way. The unwillingness to accept a unified neutral Germany in the 1950s was predicated on the same thinking. We don’t know if that would have been possible, but Stalin did offer a unified Germany which would have democratic elections which he was sure to lose, but on condition that it would not be part of a hostile military alliance. However, the US was not willing to tolerate a unified Germany. The establishment of NATO is in large part an effort to ensure European discipline and the current attempts to expand NATO are further planning of the same sort.
European elites have been, by and large, pretty satisfied with this arrangement. They’re not very different from the dominant forces in the US. They are somewhat different, but closely interrelated. There are mutual investments and business relations. The elite sectors of Europe don’t particularly object to the US policies. You can see this very strikingly in the case of Iran. The US has sought to isolate and strangle Iran for years. It had embargos and sanctions, and it has repeatedly threatened Europe to eliminate investments in Iran. The main European corporations have pretty much agreed to that. China, on the other hand, did not. China can’t be intimidated, that’s why the US government is frightened of China. But Europe backs off and pretty much follows US will. The same is true on the Israel-Palestine front. The US strongly supports Israeli takeover of the valuable parts of the occupied territories and pretty much the elimination of the possibility of any viable Palestinian state. On paper, the Europeans disagree with that and they do join the international consensus on a two-state settlement, but they don’t do anything about it. They’re not willing to stand against the US. When the US government decided to punish the Palestinians for electing the wrong party in the last elections, Europe went along, not totally, but pretty much. By and large, European elites do not see it in their interest to confront the US. They’d rather integrate with it. The problem the US is having with China, and Asia more generally, is that they don’t automatically accept US orders.
K.M. - They don’t fall in line…
N.C. - Yes, they won’t fall in line, and, especially in the case of China, they just won’t be intimidated. That’s why, if you read the latest National Security Strategy, China is identified as the major long range threat to the US. This is not because China is going to invade or attack anyone. In fact, of all the major nuclear powers, they’re the one that is the least aggressive, but they simple refuse to be intimidated, not just in their policies regarding the Middle East, but also in Latin America. While the US is trying to isolate and undermine Venezuela, China proceeds to invest in and to import from Venezuela without regard to what the US says.
The international order is in a way rather like the mafia. The godfather has to ensure that there is discipline.
Europe quietly pursues its own economic interests as long as they don’t fall in direct conflict with the US. Even in the case of Iran, although major European corporations did pull out of country, and Europe did back down on its bargain with Tehran on uranium enrichment, nevertheless, Europe does maintain economic relations with Iran. For years, the US has also tried to prevent Europe from investing in Cuba and Europe pretty much kept away, but not entirely. The US has a mixed attitude towards European investment and resource extraction in Latin America. For one thing, the US and European corporate systems are very much interlinked. The US relies on European support in many parts of the world. For Europe to invest in Latin America and import its resources is by no means as threatening to US domination as when China does.
K.M. - In one of his recent speeches, Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hizbullah, spoke of solidarity with the resistance movement in the occupied territories and with “our brother Chavez.” Let us speak about the common link that brings people on different sides of the Atlantic, and of different ideological background, together.
N.C. - The common thing that brings them together is that they do not subordinate themselves to US power. Hizbullah knows perfectly well that they’re not going to get help from Venezuela, but the fact that they are both following a course independently of US power and, in fact, in defiance to US orders, links them together.
The US has been trying, unsuccessfully, to topple the Cuban government for more than 45 years now and it remains. The rise of Chavez to power was very frightening to US elites. He has an enormous popular support. The level of support for the elected government in Venezuela has risen very sharply and it is now at the highest in Latin America. And Chavez is following an independent course. He’s doing a lot of things that the US doesn’t like a bit. For example, Argentina, which was driven to total ruin by following IMF orders, has slowly been reconstructing itself by rejecting IMF rules, and has wanted to pay off its debt to rid itself of the IMF. Chavez helped them, and he bought a substantial part of the Argentine debt. To rid oneself from the IMF means to rid oneself from one of the two modalities of control employed by the US: violence and economic force. Yesterday, Bolivia nationalized its gas reserves; the US is only (only??) opposed to that. And Bolivia was able to do that partly because of Venezuelan support.
If countries move in a direction of independent nationalism, that is regarded as unacceptable. Why did the US want to destroy Nasser? Was it because he was more violent and tyrannical than other leaders? The problem was that it was an independent secular nationalism. That just can’t be accepted.
K.M. - You talked about the Chavez government’s popularity at home. The polls show that the same is not true about the Bush Administration and its policies, both at home and abroad. Despite the discontent on a wide range of issues, little has changed in terms of US policy. How do you explain that?
N.C. - In a book that just came out, I talk about this at some length. The US has a growing and by now enormous democratic deficit at home; there’s an enormous divide between public opinion and public policy on a whole range of issues, from the health system to Iraq. The Bush administration has a very narrow grip on power- remember in the last election Bush got about 31 percent of the electorate, Kerry got 29 percent. A few changes in the votes in Ohio and it could have gone the other way- they’re using that narrow grip desperately to try to institutionalize very radical and far reaching changes in the US. They can get away with it because there’s no opposition party. If there were an opposition party, it would have totally overwhelmed the Bush administration. Every week, the Bush administration does something to shoot itself in the foot, whether it’s Hurricane Katrina, corruption scandals, or other issues, but the formal opposition party can’t make any gains. One of the most interesting things about US politics in the past years is that while support for the Bush administration, which was always very thin, has declined very sharply because of one catastrophe after the other, support for the Democrats hasn’t increased. It is increasing only as a reaction to the lack of support to the Republicans. This is because the Democrats are not presenting an alternative.
K.M. - You mentioned your recent book, Failed States. In the Afterword of that book, you say, “No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit at home is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world.” How much are these “messianic missions” helping the Bush Administration?
N.C. - They’re helping the administration among the educated classes. I discuss this in some length in the book. The messianic missions came along right after the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The invasion was only on the ground that Iraq was just about to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Well, after a few months, they discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction, so they had to find a new pretext for invading and that became the messianic mission. The intellectual classes, in Europe as well, and even in the Arab world, picked this up: the leader said it therefore we have to believe it.
Among the general population, however, I don’t think these messianic missions have much influence, except indirectly. This whole rhetoric is a weak effort, and in fact by now it’s pretty desperate.
I'm not denying that, however, it's no different than Israel's airstrikes. Except Israel has killed 377 people and Hezbollah has killed 37, 29 of which were soldiers. Only 3 Hezbollah militants have been killed or captured. If your going to call Hezbollah terrorists than you can go ahead and call Israel terrorists aswell.
In fact, you can call Bush's "Shock and Awe" campaign an act of terrorism aswell. For "shock and awe" adequately describes an act of terrorism.
First off, that is a complete and utter bullshit stat, unless you mean specifically the airstrikes on Beirut ... And really, there's no clear way to prove how many militants die in airstrikes. At least 100 Hezbollah have died in the battles near the Isreali border, and probably more, with an unknown number of wounded.
And if one assumes that Israel is deliberately killing Lebanese civilians? Then yes, that is a terrorist act that fits the definition.
It does if the deliberate intent is to kill civilians, as a way of winning a war.
God, we were about to go onto a diplomatic process (2004, I guess) with the late prime minister Hariri, those prisoners supposed to become a part of a peace agreement between Israel & Lebanon. Unfortunately, Asad's people (and some would say Hezbollah) killed him because of his intention do have peace with Israel. If Hezbollah is not a terror organization but a political party, then:
1. It had no reason to be armed since 2000.
2. Hezbollah should have tried to solve this prisoners problem via diplomacy, like prime minister Hariri did, not by kidnapping people (army resereved men, btw) inside Israel.
We arested Hamas officials after their people dig a long tunnle into Israeli territory, a place called Kerem Shalom which is a supervision point near Egypt-Palestine border (rafich) as part of Israel-Palestine authority *agreement* during the Gaza withdrawal. they did that and kill & kidnapped Israeli soliders. This is an act of terror, not war. And btw, Hamas is also a terror organization - another case of an active armed militia in the parlament.
===========
Byrnzie: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
And I would also like you to answer my question in page 7:
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
The Lebonese people will not accept Israel's terms for peace. Israel always makes offers that solidify their stance on the conflicts, they simply mean that Israel wins and the Arab nations lose. If a Prime Minister of Lebanon attempts to settle on Israel's terms, it's no wonder the guy was assasinated. I'm not saying it's right, but it makes sense. Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing.
Using any other nation besides Israel as an example is diverting the problem. No other nations have the history with the arabs that Israel has.
Well, you seem to think that the Lebanese and the Hezbollah are the same entity, and they aren't. Anyhow, I agree with the gist ... I think both sides are going to have to make concessions if there is to be a ceasefire.
Really? says who, you? I suggest you should read about Hariri and his actions for Lebanon, the man considered to be the savior of the Lebanese people, and had a MASSIVE support from them. He started talking with Ariel Sharon about a peace agreement (which then included water issues as well as prisoners issues) with Israel and tried to oppose Syria & Iran. His murder ruined so many things...
"Hezbollah made an entry into parliament in 2000 in order to retain it's militant wing" - there's no such thing, I'm sorry. If you are a political party then you should not be armed, let alone when you got an order to get rid of your arsenal - end of story.
http://www.gulfnews.com/opinion/columns/region/10054552.html
Hezbollah are a political party, with a civilian wing and a military one. They are there - because Israel invaded Lebanon, they're there but I'm sure they don't want to be. They're only there because Israel invaded - before that, Lebanon was relatively quiet.
It may seem stange and ridiculous to you, but this "terrorism" thing has only started to occur since WWII. Before that - "terrorism" was simply the action of an opposing party - Americans vs. British - the Frech peasants vs. nobles, you wouldn't call those "peasants" terrorists. Really, it seems we didn't start calling members of the opposition "terrorists" untill after WWII.
Somehow - by dehumanizing the "terrorists" - then "we" can find a way to justify our extraordinarily aggressive counter-terrorism. I don't like it, this whole thing makes me sick. That some people - probably most are blind to the bombs we send out, yet so terrified of the opposition who weild on a scale, a pins head supply of the war machines, bombs, and terror we have.
It's important not to be sympathetic to either side - obviously both have, "the bomb." It's even more critical that we don't justify our own brand of the bomb just because it has our particular socio/cultural/economic/political symbol attached.
watch carefully - this is tricky:
US Dept of Defense, Definition of Terrorism:
"The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."
Gaza and Lebanon: Connecting the Dots
by Col. Daniel Smith, U.S. Army (Ret.):
"The United States and Israel share a similar approach to security. Both have emphasized unilateral, overpowering force or the threat of such force to try to establish absolute security from attack or even intimidation from others."
Hence:
We should force ceasefire. Or be hypocrites.
To all those who still think there is rational behind counter-terrorism... to believe such a thing as counter-terrorism is rational, you probably believe a lot of thing's in the Bible as well, well:
Matthew7:5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
Don't be a hypocrite - don't trust the U.S. or Israel... or Hamas or Hezbollah... or Russia or China.... or Iran or Syria... or... you get the picture?
Cease-fire.
So someone who doesn't believe in the Bible is now quoting the Bible to others?
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
Quite clearly yes.
The Bible... is a thing - I believe that it is a thing, a book filled with a rather amazingly contradictory cacophony of passages... yes.
I do not believe that I have to follow it... which in it's current edit - would be quite impossible, imagine the amazing variety of people I'd have to kill in God's name! (Old Testament God - the new testament one seems to have become a copy of a copy, say it with me - simulacrum -, his sons' word that he is rather than being represented by direct action, hence nobody except Jesus seems to believe in... "him.") I do not think for a moment that anyone should "follow" or "believe" the Bible, and do not nor have I ever once rthought the Bible is all good.
Having made my view quite clear - I have read plenty of it, and I do find little nuggets of wisdom here and there which I am quite free to "agree with" or "believe in."
Which is why Hezbollah IS aterror organization, you can't be a political praty AND have your OWN army, let alone if you were ordered to get rid of your arsenal in 2000 (after Israel moved out of Lebanon). Lebanon is a sovereign country with an official army, Hezbollah has no reason or right to exist as an armed force within Lebanon, period.
Who are the Global Terrorists?
Noam Chomsky
Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Worlds in Collision: Terror and the Future of Global Order, Palgrave Macmillan, May, 2002
After the atrocities of 11 September, the victim declared a "war on terrorism," targeting not just the suspected perpetrators, but the country in which they were located, and others charged with terrorism worldwide. President Bush pledged to "rid the world of evildoers" and "not let evil stand," echoing Ronald Reagan's denunciation of the "evil scourge of terrorism" in 1985 -- specifically, state-supported international terrorism, which had been declared to be the core issue of US foreign policy as his administration came into office.NOTE{_New York Times_, Oct. 18, 1985.} The focal points of the first war on terror were the Middle East and Central America, where Honduras was the major base for US operations. The military component of the re-declared war is led by Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Reagan's special representative to the Middle East; the diplomatic efforts at the UN by John Negroponte, Reagan's Ambassador to Honduras. Planning is largely in the hands of other leading figures of the Reagan-Bush (I) administrations.
The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil.
The problem of definition is held to be vexing and complex. There are, however, proposals that seem straightforward, for example, in US Army manuals, which define terrorism as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear." NOTE{_US Army Operational Concept for Terrorism Counteraction_ (TRADOC Pamphlet No. 525-37), 1984.} That definition carries additional authority because of the timing: it was offered as the Reagan administration was intensifying its war on terrorism. The world has changed little enough so that these recent precedents should be instructive, even apart from the continuity of leadership from the first war on terrorism to its recent reincarnation.
The first war received strong endorsement. The UN General Assembly condemned international terrorism two months after Reagan's denunciation, again in much stronger and more explicit terms in 1987. NOTE{GA Res. 40/61, 9 Dec. 1985; Res. 42/159, 7 Dec. 1987.} Support was not unanimous, however. The 1987 resolution passed 153-2, Honduras abstaining. Explaining their negative vote, the US and Israel identified the fatal flaw: the statement that "nothing in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation..." That was understood to apply to the struggle of the African National Congress against the Apartheid regime of South Africa (a US ally, while the ANC was officially labelled a "terrorist organization"); and to the Israeli military occupation, then in its 20th year, sustained by US military and diplomatic support in virtual international isolation. Presumably because of US opposition, the UN resolution against terrorism was ignored. NOTE{See my _Necessary Illusions_ (Boston: South End, 1989), chap. 4; my essay in Alex George, ed., _Western State Terrorism_ (Cambridge: Polity/Blackwell, 1991).}
Reagan's 1985 condemnation referred specifically to terrorism in the Middle East, selected as the lead story of 1985 in an AP poll. But for Secretary of State George Shultz, the administration moderate, the most "alarming" manifestation of "state-sponsored terrorism," a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself" in "a return to barbarism in the modern age," was frighteningly close to home. There is "a cancer, right here in our land mass," Shultz informed Congress, threatening to conquer the hemisphere in a "revolution without borders," a interesting fabrication exposed at once but regularly reiterated with appropriate shudders. NOTE{Shultz, "Terrorism: The Challenge to the Democracies," June 24, 1984 (State Dept. Current Policy No. 589); "Terrorism and the Modern World," Oct. 25, 1984 (State Department Current Policy No. 629). Shultz's congressional testimony, 1986, 1983, the former part of a major campaign to gain more funding for the contras; see Jack Spence and Eldon Kenworthy in Thomas Walker, ed., _Reagan versus the Sandinistas_ (Boulder, London: Westview, 1987).}
So severe was the threat that on Law Day (1 May) 1985, the President announced an embargo "in response to the emergency situation created by the Nicaraguan Government's aggressive activities in Central America." He also declared a national emergency, renewed annually, because "the policies and actions of the Government of Nicaragua constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States."
"The terrorists -- and the other states that aid and abet them -- serve as grim reminders that democracy is fragile and needs to be guarded with vigilance," Shultz warned. We must "cut [the Nicaraguan cancer] out," and not by gentle means: "Negotiations are a euphemism for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across the bargaining table," Shultz declared, condemning those who advocate "utopian, legalistic means like outside mediation, the United Nations, and the World Court, while ignoring the power element of the equation." The US was exercising "the power element of the equation" with mercenary forces based in Honduras, under Negroponte's supervision, and successfully blocking the "utopian, legalistic means" pursued by the World Court and the Latin American Contadora nations -- as Washington continued to do until its terrorist wars were won. NOTE{Shultz, "Moral Principles and Strategic Interests," April 14, 1986 (State Department, Current Policy No. 820).}
Reagan's condemnation of the "evil scourge" was issued at a meeting in Washington with Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who arrived to join in the call to extirpate the evil shortly after he had sent his bombers to attack Tunis, killing 75 people with smart bombs that tore them to shreds among other atrocities recorded by the prominent Israeli journalist Amnon Kapeliouk on the scene. Washington cooperated by failing to warn its ally Tunisia that the bombers were on the way. Shultz informed Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir that Washington "had considerable sympathy for the Israeli action," but drew back when the Security Council unanimously denounced the bombing as an "act of armed aggression" (US abstaining).NOTE{_NYT_, Oct. 17, 18; Kapeliouk, _Yediot Ahronot_, Nov. 15, 1985. Foreknowledge, _Los Angeles Times_, Oct. 3; Geoffrey Jansen, _Middle East International_, Oct 11, 1985. Bernard Gwertzman, _NYT_, Oct. 2, 7, 1985.}
A second candidate for most extreme act of Mideast international terrorism in the peak year of 1985 is a car-bombing in Beirut on March 8 that killed 80 people and wounded 256. The bomb was placed outside a Mosque, timed to explode when worshippers left. "About 250 girls and women in flowing black chadors, pouring out of Friday prayers at the Imam Rida Mosque, took the brunt of the blast," Nora Boustany reported. The bomb also "burned babies in their beds," killed children "as they walked home from the mosque," and "devastated the main street of the densely populated" West Beirut suburb. The target was a Shi'ite leader accused of complicity in terrorism, but he escaped. The crime was organized by the CIA and its Saudi clients with the assistance of British intelligence. NOTE{Boustany, _Washington Post Weekly_, March 14, 1988; Bob Woodward, _Veil_ (Simon & Schuster, 1987, 396f.).}
The only other competitor for the prize is the "Iron Fist" operations that Peres directed in March in occupied Lebanon, reaching new depths of "calculated brutality and arbitrary murder," a Western diplomat familiar with the area observed, as Israel Defense Forces (IDF) shelled villages, carted off the male population, killed dozens of villagers in addition to many massacred by the IDF's paramilitary associates, shelled hospitals and took patients away for "interrogation," along with numerous other atrocities. NOTE{_Guardian_, March 6, 1985. For details and sources, see my "Middle East Terrorism and the American Ideological System," in _Pirates and Emperors_ (New York: Claremont 1986; Montreal: Black Rose, 1988), reprinted in Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens, eds., _Blaming the Victims_ (London: Verso, 1988).} The IDF high command described the targets as "terrorist villagers." The operations against them must continue, the military correspondent of the _Jerusalem Post_ (Hirsh Goodman) added, because the IDF must "maintain order and security" in occupied Lebanon despite "the price the inhabitants will have to pay."
Like Israel's invasion of Lebanon 3 years earlier, leaving some 18,000 killed, these actions and others in Lebanon were not undertaken in self-defense but rather for political ends, as recognized at once in Israel. The same was true, almost entirely, of those that followed, up to Peres's murderous invasion of 1996. But all relied crucially on US military and diplomatic support. Accordingly, they too do not enter the annals of international terrorism.
In brief, there was nothing odd about the proclamations of the leading co-conspirators in Mideast international terrorism, which therefore passed without comment at the peak moment of horror at the "return to barbarism."
The well-remembered prize-winner for 1985 is the hijacking of the _Achille Lauro_ and brutal murder of a passenger, Leon Klinghoffer, doubtless a vile terrrorist act, and surely not justified by the claim that it was in retaliation for the far worse Tunis atrocities and a pre-emptive effort to deter others. Adopting moral truisms, the same holds of our own acts of retaliation or pre-emption.
Evidently, we have to qualify the definition of "terrorism" given in official sources: the term applies only to terrorism against _us_, not the terrorism we carry out against _them_. The practice is conventional, even among the most extreme mass murderers: the Nazis were protecting the population from terrorist partisans directed from abroad, while the Japanese were laboring selflessly to create an "earthly paradise" as they fought off the "Chinese bandits" terrorizing the peaceful people of Manchuria and their legitimate government. Exceptions would be hard to find....
As the Court decision was announced, Congress substantially increased funding for the mercenary forces engaged in "the unlawful use of force." Shortly after, the US command directed them to attack "soft targets" -- undefended civilian targets -- and to avoid combat with the Nicaraguan army, as they could do, thanks to US control of the skies and the sophisticated communication equipment provided to the terrorist forces. The tactic was considered reasonable by prominent commentators as long as it satisfied "the test of cost-benefit analysis," an analysis of "the amount of blood and misery that will be poured in, and the likelihood that democracy will emerge at the other end" -- "democracy" as Western elites understand the term, an interpretation illustrated graphically in the region. NOTE{For details, see my _Culture of Terrorism_ (Boston: South End, 1988), 77f.}
State Department Legal Advisor Abraham Sofaer explained why the US was entitled to reject ICJ jurisdiction. In earlier years, most members of the UN "were aligned with the United States and shared its views regarding world order." But since decolonization a "majority often opposes the United States on important international questions." Accordingly, we must "reserve to ourselves the power to determine" how we will act and which matters fall "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States" -- in this case, the terrorist acts against Nicaragua condemned by the Court and the Security Council. For similar reasons, since the 1960s the US has been far in the lead in vetoing Security Council resolutions on a wide range of issues, Britain second, France a distant third.NOTE{Sofaer, _The United States and the World Court_ (State Dept. Current Policy 769), Dec. 1985.}
Washington waged its "war on terrorism" by creating an international terror network of unprecedented scale, and employing it worldwide, with lethal and long-lasting effects. In Central America, terror guided and supported by the US reached its most extreme levels in countries where the state security forces themselves were the immediate agents of international terrorism. The effects were reviewed in a 1994 conference organized by Salvadoran Jesuits, whose experiences had been particularly gruesome. NOTE{Juan Hern ndez Pico, _Env¡o_ (Universidad Centroamericana, Managua), March 1994.} The conference report takes particular note of the effects of the residual "culture of terror...in domesticating the expectations of the majority vis-a-vis alternatives different to those of the powerful," an important observation on the efficacy of state terror that generalizes broadly. In Latin America, the 11 September atrocities were harshly condemned, but commonly with the observation that they are nothing new. They may be described as "Armageddon," the research journal of the Jesuit university in Managua observed, but Nicaragua has "lived its own Armageddon in excruciating slow motion" under US assault "and is now submerged in its dismal aftermath," and others fared far worse under the vast plague of state terror that swept through the continent from the early 1960s, much of it traceable to Washington. NOTE{_Env¡o_, Oct. 2001. For a judicious review of the aftermath, see Thomas Walker and Ariel Armony, eds., _Repression, Resistance, and Democratic Transition in Central America_ (Wilmington: Scholarly Resources, 2000).}
It is hardly surprising that Washington's call for support in its war of revenge for 11 Sept. had little resonance in Latin America. An international Gallup poll found that support for military force rather than extradition ranged from 2% (Mexico) to 11% (Venezuela and Colombia). Condemnations of the 11 Sept. terror were regularly accompanied by recollections of their own suffering, for example, the death of perhaps thousands of poor people (Western crimes, therefore unexamined) when George Bush I bombed the barrio Chorillo in Panama in December 1989 in Operation Just Cause, undertaken to kidnap a disobedient thug who was sentenced to life imprisonment in Florida for crimes mostly committed while he was on the CIA payroll. NOTE{_Env¡o_, Oct. 2001; Panamanian journalist Ricardo Stevens, NACLA _Report on the Americas_, Nov/Dec 2001.}
The record continues to the present without essential change, apart from modification of pretexts and tactics. The list of leading recipients of US arms yields ample evidence, familiar to those acquainted with international human rights reports.
It therefore comes as no surprise that President Bush informed Afghans that bombing will continue until they hand over people the US suspects of terrorism (rebuffing requests for evidence and tentative offers of negotiation). Or, when new war aims were added after three weeks of bombing, that Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, chief of the British Defense Staff, warned Afghans that US-UK attacks will continue "until the people of the country themselves recognize that this is going to go on until they get the leadership changed." NOTE {Patrick Tyler and Elisabeth Bumiller, _NYT_, Oct. 12; Michael Gordon, _NYT_, Oct. 28, 2001; both p. 1.} In other words, the US and UK will persist in "the calculated use of violence to attain goals that are political... in nature...": international terrorism in the technical sense, but excluded from the canon by the standard convention. The rationale is essentially that of the US-Israel international terrorist operations in Lebanon. Admiral Boyce is virtually repeating the words of the eminent Israeli statesman Abba Eban, as Reagan declared the first war on terrorism. Replying to Prime Minister Menachem Begin's account of atrocities in Lebanon committed under the Labor government in the style "of regimes which neither Mr. Begin nor I would dare to mention by name," Eban acknowledged the accuracy of the account, but added the standard justification: "there was a rational prospect, ultimately fulfilled, that affected populations would exert pressure for the cessation of hostilities." NOTE{_Jerusalem Post_, Aug. 16, 1981.}
These concepts are conventional, as is the resort to terrorism when deemed appropriate. Furthermore, its success is openly celebrated. The devastation caused by US terror operations in Nicaragua was described quite frankly, leaving Americans "United in Joy" at their successful outcome, the press proclaimed. The massacre of hundreds of thousands of Indonesians in 1965, mostly landless peasants, was greeted with unconstrained euphoria, along with praise for Washington for concealing its own critical role, which might have embarrassed the "Indonesian moderates" who had cleansed their society in a "staggering mass slaughter" (_New York Times_) that the CIA compared to the crimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao. NOTE{For extensive review, see my _Necessary Illusions_ and _Deterring Democracy_ (London: Verso, 1991) (Nicaragua); _Year 501_ (Boston: South End, 1993) (Indonesia).} There are many other examples. One might wonder why Osama bin Laden's disgraceful exultation over the atrocities of 11 Sept. occasioned indignant surprise. But that would be an error, based on failure to distinguish their terror, which is evil, from ours, which is noble, the operative principle throughout history.
If we keep to official definitions, it is a serious error to describe terrorism as the weapon of the weak. Like most weapons, it is wielded to far greater effect by the strong. But then it is not terror; rather, "counterterror," or "low intensity warfare," or "self-defense"; and if successful, "rational" and "pragmatic," and an occasion to be "united in joy."
Let us turn to the question of proper response to the crime, bearing in mind the governing moral truism. If, for example, Admiral Boyce's dictum is legitimate, then victims of Western state terrorism are entitled to act accordingly. That conclusion is, properly, regarded as outrageous. Therefore the principle is outrageous when applied to official enemies, even more so when we recognize that the actions were undertaken with the expectation that they would place huge numbers of people at grave risk. No knowledgeable authority seriously questioned the UN estimate that "7.5 million Afghans will need food over the winter -- 2.5 million more than on Sept. 11," NOTE{Elisabeth Bumiller and Elizabeth Becker, _NYT_, Oct. 17, 2001.} a 50% increase as a result of the threat of bombing, then the actuality, with a toll that will never be investigated if history is any guide.
A different proposal, put forth by the Vatican among others, was spelled out by military historian Michael Howard: "a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations...against a criminal conspiracy whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, be awarded an appropriate sentence." NOTE{_Foreign Affairs_, Jan/Feb 2002; talk of Oct. 30. See Tania Branigan, _Guardian_, Oct. 31, 2001.} Though never contemplated, the proposal seems reasonable. If so, then it would be reasonable if applied to Western state terrorism, something that could also never be contemplated, though for opposite reasons.
The war in Afghanistan has commonly been described as a "just war," indeed evidently so. There have been some attempts to frame a concept of "just war" that might support the judgment. We may therefore ask how these proposals fare when evaluated in terms of the same moral truism. I have yet to see one that does not instantly collapse: application of the proposed concept to Western state terrorism would be considered unthinkable, if not despicable. For example, we might ask how the proposals would apply to the one case that is uncontroversial in the light of the judgments of the highest international authorities, Washington's war against Nicaragua; uncontroversial, that is, among those who have some commitment to international law and treaty obligations. It is an instructive experiment.
Similar questions arise in connection with other aspects of the wars on terrorism. There has been debate over whether the US-UK war in Afghanistan was authorized by ambiguous Security Council resolutions, but it is beside the point. The US surely could have obtained clear and unambiguous authorization, not for attractive reasons (consider why Russia and China eagerly joined the coalition, hardly obscure). But that course was rejected, presumably because it would suggest that there is some higher authority to which the US should defer, a condition that a state with overwhelming power is not likely to accept. There is even a name for that stance in the literature of diplomacy and international relations: establishing "credibility," a standard official justification for the resort to violence, the bombing of Serbia, to mention a recent example. The refusal to consider negotiated transfer of the suspected perpetrators presumably had the same grounds.
The moral truism applies to such matters as well. The US refuses to extradite terrorists even when their guilt has been well established. One current case involves Emmanuel Constant, the leader of the Haitian paramilitary forces that were responsible for thousands of brutal killings in the early 1990s under the military junta, which Washington officially opposed but tacitly supported, publicly undermining the OAS embargo and secretly authorizing oil shipments. Constant was sentenced in absentia by a Haitian court. The elected government has repeatedly called on the US to extradite him, again on September 30, 2001, while Taliban initiatives to negotiate transfer of bin Laden were being dismissed with contempt. Haiti's request was again ignored, probably because of concerns about what Constant might reveal about ties to the US government during the period of the terror. Do we therefore conclude that Haiti has the right to use force to compel his extradition, following as best it can Washington's model in Afghanistan? The very idea is outrageous, yielding another prima facie violation of the moral truism.
It is all too easy to add illustrations. NOTE{For a sample, see George, _op. cit._. Exceptions are rare, and the reactions they elicit are not without interest.} Consider Cuba, probably the main target of international terrorism since 1959, remarkable in scale and character, some of it exposed in declassified documents on Kennedy's Operation Mongoose and continuing to the late 1990s. Cold War pretexts were ritually offered as long as that was possible, but internally the story was the one commonly unearthed on inquiry. It was recounted in secret by Arthur Schlesinger, reporting the conclusions of JFK's Latin American mission to the incoming President: the Cuban threat is "the spread of the Castro idea of taking matters into one's own hands," which might stimulate the "poor and underprivileged" in other countries, who "are now demanding opportunities for a decent living" -- the "virus" or "rotten apple" effect, as it is called in high places The Cold War connection was that "the Soviet Union hovers in the wings, flourishing large development loans and presenting itself as the model for achieving modernization in a single generation." NOTE{_FRUS_, 1961-63, vol. XII, American Republics, 13f., 33.}
True, these exploits of international terrorism -- which were quite serious -- are excluded by the standard convention. But suppose we keep to the official definition. In accord with the theories of "just war" and proper response, how has Cuba been entitled to react?
It is fair enough to denounce international terrorism as a plague spread by "depraved opponents of civilization itself." The commitment to "drive the evil from the world" can even be taken seriously, if it satisfies moral truisms -- not, it would seem, an entirely unreasonable thought.
"What would you say if Hizbollah did the same thing with soliders from US/England or other int forces in occuping Iraq? And what would you say if Hizbollah did the same with FORMER int armed forces in occuping Iraq, for example get into Spain, kill and kidnap their soliders? does it sound like an assistance to the Iraqi people? Is this justified? Does Hizbollah have the right to do such things?
Thanks.
========
And once again: Do you mind not bringing Chomsky's articales all the time? He writes about his point of view, his (unique) *opinions*, not necessarily facts. If I did the same thing with pro-Israeli intellectuals, you would probably call me biased, right?
"Remember the photograph of Donald Rummsfeld shaking Saddam Hussein's hand with a shit eating grin on his face?"
Well guess what - which one had the shit eating grin?
They both did, because they're both pawns of some grand power structure - that constantly plans and dictates laws, which it then breaks and recreates - that organism we call the military-industrial complex. All this war, this is all planned out in advance.
Do you think Israel could have focused all its troops and guns and forces overnight? They could have - because they knew the enemies moves in advance, they're all planned out on a chessboard (so to say.)
They know what is comming and they know when it'll hit the fan - they allow this shit to happen so that they can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of thier Orwellian brains. For power, for control over thier guilt and desperation - because ages of living surrogate to the military-industrial system has drowned thier normal sense of human compassion and anchored it down with a - again, rather Orwellian system of guilt, punishment, vitriolic temperment, lies, and deep seated subjugation.
All is war. Unless you've found a way out, unless you're anti-war.
Do you think the Israeli army is panicking over the innocent civilian lives they've vicariously taken? The majority are bred to accept them, their murders are cleaner than the rest, theirs are forgivable and forgettable as long as they've established some just cause that can transform thier killing into an Orwellian sense of compassion. The cause of the army is just doublethink, think about that next time they've bombed another country in "defense." This counter-terror doesn't make sense. It's terrorism either way. It's us or it's them.
It's time to listen to some Bob Dylan...
British soldiers have been kidnapped in Iraq. British civilians have been kidnapped in Iraq. Beheaded. Tortured, for the world to see.
The British government does nothing when this happens. This is very sad, especially as the logistics of the capture are of a desperate and unrealistic nature (the captors demand withdrawl of troops from Iraq, etc).
In the case of Israel, the captors want the release of innocent civilians and refugees which Israel are breaking human rights laws by keeping as prisoners. If they are terrorists, fine. Prove it. But release the innocents.
To me, that is not unreasonable. I can understand that kidnappings are childish and somewhat catastrophic, but if Israel were to comply they would solve a lot of problems. However, Israel wouldn't do anything like that because it would mean being fair and giving the palestinians justice, which israel hates and despises.
And no, Hezbollah does not have the right to do such things. But neither does Israel. The ridiculous use of destruction is showing the world what they are: callous, crazy bastards that rather than target the enemy, they target civilans.
Does Israel have the right to do such thing's?
Is this:
http://www.bubbleshare.com/album/47671/1356651/overview
Slaughter justified?
War is insane and each opposing party is equally responsible for every atrocity, every time. Human beings haven't evolved over thousands of years and struggled to survive countless wars before - just so we can go on building bigger bombs, more weapons, and killing more people - humanity needs to learn it's lesson, right now. We're able to stop war. ...
You are insane. I guess you haven't heared about intelligence, ha? not to mention we began with nothing but the air force, ground troops came much later because there wasn't any plane. You are actually claiming we let our army reserve soliders to be kidnapped, and others to be killed by a group of terrorists just so we "can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of our Orwellian brains"?
God, you are a crazy miserable person. If we had a plane things would have looked better, hence there were 400 dead terrorists, not civilians.
Get a life, And some psychological help do deal with your conspiracy theories. What's next, black people slavery didn't happen? How pathetic.
Not by the Hezbollah, but by *Iraqi* armed forces.
"In the case of Israel, the captors want the release of innocent civilians and refugees which Israel are breaking human rights laws by keeping as prisoners. If they are terrorists, fine. Prove it. But release the innocents"
If Hezbollah wasn't a terror organization but a real political party, they should have tried using diplomacy first. And we don't need to prove anything - it is considered to be a terror organization by deffinition across the globe.
btw, those prisoners are mostly Hezbollah people, hence nothing close to "innocent civilians".
"To me, that is not unreasonable. I can understand that kidnappings are childish and somewhat catastrophic, but if Israel were to comply they would solve a lot of problems. However, Israel wouldn't do anything like that because it would mean being fair and giving the palestinians justice, which israel hates and despises"
Lebanon and Palestine are not related - different stories, different areas, but the same terror actions by Hamas & Hezbollah - "political parties" who are also acting as an armed forces, crossing Israeli border to kidnap and kill patrol soliders / army reserve soliders.
"And no, Hezbollah does not have the right to do such things" - Just what I wanted to hear, thank you.
"But neither does Israel" - News flash: we moved out of Lebanon in 2000, those prisoners (Hezbollah people = terrorists) were captured during the Lebanese war, and the release of most of them was included in what should have been Israel-Lebanon peace agreement. unfortunately Syria & Hezbollah didn't want Lebanon to have peace with us, so they killed the Lebanese prime minister Hariri.
"The ridiculous use of destruction is showing the world what they are: callous, crazy bastards that rather than target the enemy, they target civilans":
you also ment to Hezbollah's actions, right? or maybe you are also one of these one-sided persons? our response was unavoidable, but yet non measured. Hezbollah's action was avoidable & non measured. Deal with that.
Firstly, I didn't see your post on the previous page. Secondly, if you have a criticism of a particular point that Chomsky makes in the above article then please share it with us. And thirdly, if British or U.S soldiers were attacked by Hizbollah whilst engaging in an illegal military occupation of a soveriegn nation then I'd say that the British and U.S forces should leave. If Britain left Iraq but then decided to occupy, for example, Ireland, and proceeded to terrorize the Irish and subject them to daily humliations whilst bulldozing their homes and killing them at will, and Hizbollah then kidnapped some British soldiers and atempted to, in some way, assist the Irish, I'd understand, and in fact sympathise with Hizbollah. This is because I don't care a fuck about the criminal activities of my goverment and because I believe that human beings should aspire to some form of justice in this world. And justice should be universal and not dependent on race, creed, or 'country' - whatever 'country' means.
P.s, you really should read the above article by Chomsky. I think you'd find it useful.
No.
I was HEAVILY GENERALIZING.
Where as you are hastily drawing conclusions about my opinions out of your ass.
I didn't say anything to the effect of:
a) my ignorance of intelligence - drawn out your ass
b) air force / ground troops = same thing, "force." - unjustified
c) "we" - not sure who you're refering to - sent our troops into combat, if they get kidnaped, well shucks, they got kidnapped with guns in thier hands and sights on the "enemy," well, yeah that sucks - but that's war.
d) Yes - we enter into war, knowing our side will experience losses/fatalities - hence, yes - we "can feed that insane death rattle in the pit of our Orwellian brains" because we are sending our troops to die.
e) I try not to be crazy or miserable - again you pulled that one out your ass
f) your statement about "having a plane then thing's would have looked better," totaly confounds me, I can't quite grasp what you're getting to.
g) 400 dead terrorists? where did you get that number? I've looked - I've been looking for 15 min now...
anyway - to make it ABSOLUTELY CLEAR WHAT I WAS SAYING,
"An eye for an eye leave the whole world blind." Wrap your mind around that one, bask in it's relative simplicity and relevant sincerity.
Israel...
god damn, not innocent here:
Israeli bombs and shells have killed more than 100 Lebanese civilians in the last few days and more than 89 Palestinians since June 25, 2006 while injuring hundreds more civilians in both countries;
Israel has bombed buses and cars carrying desperate civilians in Lebanon;
Israel has declared that “no place is safe” in Lebanon;
Israel has destroyed every road and bridge from the South to Beirut;
Israel has bombed the international highway between Damascus and Beirut as well as the airport and vital civilian infrastructure;
Israel has destroyed vital infrastructure including power plant, bridges and municipal
facilities in Gaza;
Israel has arrested and is detaining at least 65 elected Palestinian government officials...
They are killing civilians - not only terrorists. Just like Americans have killed thousand of innocent, completely innocent Iraqi civilians - as well as a few terrorists. The ends don't justify the means. Israel and U.S.A. have no right to call themselves just when thier atrocities more or less equal those of thier... our enemies. This whole thing is Orwellian, you've probably just not read the book.
Hi,
1. There is no chance I'll listen to such a one sided-black or white person. Chomsky or Marzel - as far as I'm concerned they are basically the same. I'de rather find my answers in Al Jazeera, main news sites and... outside my window, since I'm living here in Haifa, the symbole of co-existence.
(sorry, a few missiles has just targeted the area near my house, I'll keep on writing later)
Whoa buddy.
Sorry, I'm going to outright put my politics where my ass is and sit on them for a while, while I wish you good health and hopefully safety.
Again, best intentions.
As I put my shoes on to go on a morning jog, I turned the TV on and the "Life Wasted" video was on:
"You're always saying you're too weak to be strong."
Why can't Israel be strong enough to say, that is enough - no more violence. THAT WOULD DISCREDIT THE TERRORISTS - THAT WOULD BE THE SIGN OF THE STRONG MAN WINNING THE WAR BY ACHIEVING PEACE FIRST - THAT WOULD BE THE CRITERION OF CIVILIZATION FOR THE REST, THE TERRORISTS TO FOLLOW.
If war were too low for the superpowers... then what use would it be for the terrorists?
If the terrorists knew the superpowers would not fight back... then would they attack? If you believe they are truly animals, unreasonable opponents of civilisation, then maybe they still would... But they're not - they're defending themselves just as equally as Israel and the other superpowers defend us.
peace, there... thank you Pearl Jam.
I am shocked. One of the missiles went into the yard of what was once my old house. I've got friends who still live there. One of them own a little local supermarket, right next to the hit-spot. He is OK, don't know how. Another was on her way to get inside the house when she heared the alarm. She was minor injured. Others were taken to the hospital cause of anxiety. Lots of ambulances, lots of police cars.
There were 16 missiles in this latest attack across Haifa. I don't know what to do. I just don't know.