The New York Times Online has a special section on world terror, entitled “Threats and Responses: Targeting Terror.” This section collects recent Times reports on terrorist attacks worldwide and official responses to quell them, yet it completely omits Palestinian terror and Israeli anti-terror efforts. The current, cited page includes reports of recent terror attacks and anti-terror efforts in Indonesia and Afghanistan, but Times editors decided to leave out last week’s twin Palestinian suicide bombings, and the IDF’s subsequent anti-terror actions. The Times has omitted the Israel-Palestinain conflict from this report for some time, despite many complaints.*
I don’t know why the Times has elects to make these omissions. Are they unwilling to use the word “terrorism” when referring to attacks by Palestinians against Israelis? Are there too many attacks to include in the section? Whatever their reason, the impact is to suggest that it’s less unacceptible to bomb a hotel in Israeli than to bomb a hotel in Indonesia.
Is it appropriate for the Times to exclude from their world terror section terror attacks on Israelis and Israeli attacks on Palestinian terrorists ?
*BTW this information was called to my attention by an e-mail from Honest Reporting.
After a cursory look, I also found not mention of Basque terrorists or terrorists from Corsica / Ceylon / Sweden / etc. Perhaps they’re concentrating on Muslim terrorists or international terrorists, or terrorists particular dangerous to US interests (not unreasonable in a US newspaper)? In any case I’m not very impressed for an in-depth analysis, if that’s what it’s supposed to be. One of the largest Danish newspapers (Politiken) each Sunday carries a section from this newspaper, what kind of newspaper is it anyway?
I appreciate your feedback. However, the terrorists attacking Israeli civilians mostly are Muslim. Many of them are backed by other countries, such as Syria, so they are more-or-less international. And, Israel is an ally, so terrorism against Israel is a US interest – certainly as much as is terrorism against Indonesia.
Actually, on reviewing the section, it appears to focus on terrorism related to al Qaeda. That may be why Israel is omitted. If that’s the case, I think the Times ought to use a more descriptive title – one with the name “al Qaeda” in it.
It is also curious that they left out the United States, the greatest purveyor of state-sponsored terrorism. As Chomsky so wittily put it, the best way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it.
All that stuff appears to be Al Qaeda related - they don’t mention terrorism in Ireland either. I don’t think the religion of non-Al Qaeda terrorists has any bearing on their report. So there you go. IMO it’s indicative of the “War on Terror” being misnamed.
The section seems to be about stories about Islamic terrorists being directly targetted by the US government ie principally Al-queda. It omits Islamic terrorism against Israel, India, Russia etc. because the US isn’t directly fighting it. It seems reasonable that a US paper would focus on terrorism from a US policy perspective.
As for the NY Times it’s probably the best newspaper in the world and certainly the most influential one.
You seem to have lost your way in these past two weeks. Presumably, you must be looking forward to Andrew Sullivan coming back from his holiday with some relish so you can get your quota of OP’s back up to speed.
BTW I didn’t notice the little foot-note in the OP about the source. Like I said in one of the BBC threads if pro-Israeli types have to scrape at the bottom of the barrel in this fashion for examples of “bias” it’s an indication that the news sources in question are doing a pretty good job of reporting the issue fairly.
You’re kidding, right? How about the last 50 years of world history? But if you insist…
Official FBI definition of terrorism:
“Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”
Even by its own definition the hypocrite U.S. government is guilty of terrorism — on a massive, international scale. And for over 100 years!
The U.S. government has broken international law and the Geneva Convention many times with its brutal use of force and horrific violence against persons and property, to intimidate and coerce governments, civilian populations, and many segments thereof, in furtherance of political, social and especially economic objectives.
“If ‘terrorism’ means ‘intimidation by violence or the threat of violence,’ and if we allow the definition to include violence by states and agents of states, then it is these, not isolated individuals or small groups, that are the important terrorists in the world.
“If terrorist violence is measured by the extent of politically motivated torture and murder, …it is in the U.S.-sponsored and protected ‘authoritarian’ states — the real terror network — that these forms of violence have reached a high
crescendo in recent decades.”
Except definitions of terrorism tend to exclude states and state agents in an official capacity. So government sponsored terror…death squads and the like, while they are rights violations, aren’t terrorism under that definition.
“The ruling elites within the U.S. military/government planned, ordered and supported the September 11 terror attacks”
Oh damn, I thought it was a Jewish conspiracy.
Unfortunately I hadn’t time to read it all, so I jumped right to the conclusion.
“HISTORY PROVES that the United States Corporate Mafia Government is the worldwide Enemy of Democracy and of Humanity itself”
Now how’s that for a conclusion! You guys really are evil.
While this is a very funny site Roger_Mexico you aren’t seriously putting this up as backing evidence are you?
Wouldn’t this make US actions ritual acts of satanic killing rather than terrorism? While there is something to be said for the hypocrisy of governments in general excusing themselves from the same standards as non-state organizations who by definition are committing ‘terrorism,’ you’re not going to cut it with cites like that.
Do articles count? How about the one they co-authored in 1977 where they denied the scale of the Cambodian genocide and compared it to the post-WWII massacre of Nazi collaborators in France? They aren’t exactly middle of the road in their viewpoints.
Hehe… love that definition… is it really the FBI definition ? It only lacks economic objectives to fit any better ! Maybe add lawful and unlawful use of force.
Unless you are Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea, or Sudan, in which case you are guilty of state-sponsored terrorism, unless you were Iraq in the 80s and we needed to sell you chemical and biological weapons, in which case we needed to take you off the list in order to do so. If the bad guys do it, they are terrorist states; if we do it, it’s not terrorism. So we pile hypocrisy upon hypocrisy to justify the murder of innocents to save them from communism or whatever. Excuse me while I pull on my wading boots.
Patterns of Global Terrorism - 2000
Released by the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism
April 30, 2001
"The designation of state sponsors of terrorism by the United States--and the imposition of sanctions--is a mechanism for isolating nations that use terrorism as a means of political expression. US policy seeks to pressure and isolate state sponsors so they will renounce the use of terrorism, end support to terrorists, and bring terrorists to justice for past crimes.
The United States is committed to holding terrorists and those who harbor them accountable for past attacks, regardless of when the acts occurred. The US Government has a long memory and will not simply expunge a terrorist’s record because time has passed. The states that choose to harbor terrorists are like accomplices who provide shelter for criminals. They will be held accountable for their “guests’” actions. International terrorists should know, before they contemplate a crime, that they cannot hunker down in safehaven for a period of time and be absolved of their crimes."
You’re right! It’s not terrorism, it is merely satanism. But if the the US government practices satanism, is that not a violation of separation of church and state?
Thanks, that’s a great article. Most of the genocide in Cambodia was due directly or indirectly to the US 'secret" bombing (no secret to the Cambodians). Pol Pot purged the collaborators, as any government would do, so the comparison to Nazi collaborators executed by the French government is an apt one. And if Pol Pot was such a bad dude, why did Reagan give him $86 million in the 80s?
No, because what those countries are doing (or have been accused of doing) is funding and supporting non-governmental groups in other countries that engage in violence against civilians. Iran, for example, provided money and arms to Hizbollah, the Lebanese guerrilla/terrorist group, Cuba supported rebels in Angola and Namibia, etc. If you want to make an anti-US comparison that way, make it with our support to the contras, which is probably the closest comparison.
For better or for worse, there’s a double standard in IR, which is that acts committed by a government against its people are judged differently than acts committed by a private group in a country against the people of that country.
The answer to the final question in your last post is that we supported Pol Pot’s government in the 80’s as a way to block Vietnam. It wasn’t particularly honorable of us, and I don’t think you’ll find anyone now who supports our actions WRT Cambodia in the’80’s.
You however, (and Chomsky), do seem to find yourself in a logical contradiction. If the atrocities committed by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were in fact American propaganda, and in reality all that occurred was the justifiable killing of anti-Khmer Rouge Cambodian leaders (and we don’t tend to judge the post-war execution of French Nazi collaboraters very harshly, or say that they made the post-war French government illegitimate), then our support for Pol Pot in the '80s is justifiable, the same way our support for France in the '50s was. Our support for Pol Pot only becomes a bad thing if the Khmer Rouge was a criminal regime.
So you seem to want to have it both ways, saying both that the Khmer Rouge government didn’t do anything wrong, and that we were wrong to support them.
You guys really are evil.