I think I have found the answer, December. The article didn’t mention al-qaeda terrorism in Israeli, because they would have uncovered something very embarassing: The Israelis were trying to create a mock al-qaeda cell in Gaza.
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=3544
Not surprising, given the fact that Israel created Hamas.
This is the sort of black&white thinking that gets Chomsky accused as a Pol Pot apologist. You are either with us or against us. There is a pretty big excluded middle here. I am not saying that the Pol Pot atrocities were all propaganda and were entirely justified. I am just saying that they were NO WORSE than the atrocities committed by France or or the US or anybody else.
All of the atrocities are bad, and the US support of genocidal dictators is all bad. The atrocities committed by the US (directly or indirectly) are no better and no worse than any other atrocities. You have to unassume the very ingrained assumption that Americans are better than other people, and that our actions are inherently good. It seems that the US thinks that the relative value of human life is pegged to the currency exchange rate.
All we want is acknowledgment from America of their role in these atrocities. We murdered hundreds of thousands of people in Cambodia and blamed most of it on Pol Pot. We created the madness which allowed Pol Pot to arise and commit the atrocities he did commit. The US is not responsible for everything, but we are responsible for the predictable consequences of our actions, and no more. It is a very high and humble moral position, and until you get it, you will always think Chomsky is a nutbag. Once you get it, there is no going back.
Arrgh! I screwed up the quoting and responding. In the bolded part, my responses to Capt. Amazing are:
The US sold arms to Iran via Israel during a minor constitutional crisis known as Iran-Contra. Does that make us a terrorist state? We aided Israel during its invasion of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982 (condemned by the UN). Does that make us a terrorist state? South Africa invaded Angola and Cuba sent troops to defend Angola.
(OK, cite: http://www.lies.net/usliedaboutcubanroleinangola.htm)
How are the actions of Cuba any different, say, from our actions in sending troops to Vietnam to supposedly defend it?
and:
There is a double standard in everything in IR when you compare the US to anybody else. It is always assumed that we are the good guys.
Terrorism is a Propaganda Word
State sponsored terrorism is just very irregular warfare. They don’t want to call it warfare because then it would be obvious that a military response is appropriate.
Individual “Terrorist” acts are crimes. Groups that perform “Terrorist” acts are a somewhat new phenomenon on the world scene and deserve a name all for themselves. They are similar to partisans and guerillas.
I don’t think the FBI definition of terrorism is particularly useful, because it just makes terrorism a kind of synonym for warfare, but that’s not what the FBI really means. It would be an okay definition if it were limited to certain kinds of irregular warfare, but as it is, the Nazi march into Poland falls under their definition of terrorism, which is ridiculous.
My own (very good) definition of terrorism is “Acts of war committed by NGO’s”. But since I’m the only one who uses that definition, it isn’t too useful either.
Many organizations and individuals define terrorism in terms of attacks on civilians. I think that lumps together the strategic bombing of WWII with bus bombing, and is more confusing than helpful. Also, there have been numerous attacks on military barracks full of sleeping soldiers in recent decades that have been termed terrorist acts.
I think the Palestinian teenage girl who blew herself up in Israel is (was) a Palestinian soldier. A very irregular soldier in a very irregular war, but a soldier in a military action. Just as the kamikaze pilots were soldiers. Many revolutionary situations have battles between armies without countries and the national governmental army, so the fact that the Palestinians don’t have a country doesn’t mean they aren’t soldiers in a war.
It is interesting that neither the Japanese at the beginning of WWII nor the Palestinians have a chance of militarily defeating their enemy. The Palestinian plan apparently is to lose the war on television and garner sympathy. This option was not available to Imperial Japan. In this light, the (possibly faked) televised death of Muhammed al-Dura takes on a new significance. The current “Terrorist” campaign in Iraq is not intended to garner sympathy (obviously) but to inflict an unacceptable number of deaths upon the US/UK/Iraqi forces.
The al-Queda network, on the other hand, seems to have no strategy whatever. One cannot imagine that their plan is to inflict sufficient deaths upon the Americans so that they will leave New York City, or convert to Islam. Perhaps they plan to produce sufficient internal dissension in the US society that the country loses legitimacy like the Soviet Union did. If so, the plan does not appear to be working.
javascript:smilie(’:smack:’)
javascript:smilie(’:smack:’)
When I first read the thread title, “Why should Israel be omitted from a report on world terrorism?,” I thought it meant “Why should Israeli terrorism against Palestine be omitted from a report on world terrorism?” and I thought December was finally seeing the light. But it was not to be.
Is the NYT article presuming to be completely comprehensive? (Your cite no longer works, I should point out, so I can’t reach the article.)
As I see it (from my limited perspective,) most countries in the world are a mixture of moral and immoral aims, in various degrees. (For instance, I would contend that Canada’s regime is quite “better” than Saddam Hussein’s.) Sometimes, it is necessary to make alliances with less-than-savory characters in order to “make the world a better place.” I’d put our alliance with Saddam Hussein in his war with Iran in that catergory. (Perhaps, in retrospect it was a bad decision, but the best “in the know” folks of the period considered an expanding Revolutionary Iran to be more dangerous to United States interests than Iraq.)
For a better example, (keeping Mr Godwin in mind, but it’s a good comparison,) consider our WWII alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union. Everyone considers Stalin to be one terrible guy. But should we have not allied with him against the greater threat in Nazi Germany? Yes, the United States allied with perhaps the greatest mass murderer in recent history. But consider the alternative. Soviet and proto-NATO forces wouldn’t have coordination, and the war against the Fascists might have turned out differently.
Obviously, we must always make sure that we try to support regimes that display a certain moral acumen. On the other hand, we must also always consider the alternative outcomes of our decisions. In IR, nothing ever exists in a vacuum. Taken in isolation, a United States military alliance with Stalinist Russia is an absolutely abominable proposition. That is obvious.
So, when analyzing the morality of United States actions, one must always weigh the historical scenario against the counterfactual scenario.
It’s unclear. Their title says, “World Terrorism.” However, the content seems to focus on al Qaeda and terrorism in Iraq.
This is a reasonable challenge so I will take it up.
Iran in 1953. US overthrows democratic government of Mossadegh and installs the Shah who tortures and murders his people. Counterfactual scenario: Some oil companies lose some revenue and the price of gas goes up 2 cents per gallon.
Guatemala in 1954. US overthrows democratic government of Arbenz and installs dictators who begin the murder of 100,000s of people. Counterfactual scenario: Arbenz pays United Fruit for their land, Guatemala gets to profit from its bananas, and the price of bananas goes up to $1.39 a pound.
Chile in 1973. US overthrows democratic government of Allende, nationalizes copper industry and whatever ITT was doing, and kicks Pepsi out of the country. Counterfactual scenario: Dental health of Chileans improves, John McCone doesn’t get cushy job on the board of ITT, Nixon’s buddies at Pepsi don’t give him whatever kickbacks they gave him for ensuring Pepsi’s presence in Chilean soft drink market.
By God, you’re absolutely right! The world is a much better place now that we have ensured the demise of democracy in most if not all of the countries we have intervened in. Who knows what horrors we would have to endure paying higher prices for oil, bananas, and Pepsi.
You seem to be plagued by ignorance on this issue.
Hezbollah is a political party with members in the Lebanese parliament. It was created to push out the illegal Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Hezbollah is a reaction to Israeli aggression. Israel still holds Lebanese land and that is why Hezbollah exists. You would have to be an idiot to call them a terrorist group for defending their nation.
Pick up a history book sometime and get hooked on phonics.
It seems he’s not the only one. I think we’ve done this before, but one more time now.
**
Trying hard not to Godwinize here, so I’ll just say that just because there are terrorists in Parliament doesn’t mean they’re not terrorists. The fact that Hizb’allah is a major force in the Lebanese Parliament doesn’t legitimize Hizb’allah, it delegitimizes the Parliament.
Please provide me with a cite that the Shabaa Farms (to which I assume you are referring) are actually Lebanese land. The UN’s official position is that they are not. You are right in that Hizb’allah was created to kick the Israelis out of Lebanon. In fact, Hizb’allah still exists to kick the Israelis out of Lebanon. That the Israelis left three years ago seems to be of little concern. You also completely ignore Israel’s reasons for going into Lebanon in the first place.
They are not being called terrorists for defending their nation. They are terrorists for using violence against civilians to inspire fear and encourage political or social change, and their motivation for doing that is irrelevant (Kahane Chai is a terrorist group, despite their motivation being to defend their nation). In any case, since their nation is not being invaded or attacked, they are not defending their nation. At this point the military wing (I acknowledge there is a social services wing, but it doesn’t really matter whether the Mafia runs a day care center) of Hizb’allah exists for two main reasons: 1) To act as a proxy army for Iran and Syria to attack Israel, and 2) To attempt to create an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon.
Physician, heal thyself.
Indeed. The obvious example being, presumably, the Prime Minister of Israel and ‘Man of peace’ himself, Ariel Sharon for repeatedly ignoring explicit orders in Southern Lebanon in 1982 and driving on to occupy Beirut – and not to mention the subsequent massacres at Sabra and Shatila
So where does that get us ? Trading crap and getting no where - you know, there really isn’t a whole lot of moral highground to claim at this point on any side. 'bout as useful as saying ‘we were here before the Palestinians/Israeli’s so it’s our land’.
Kids stuff.
My mistake. I was thinking of Syrian land.
**
That is correct. Israel still attacks Lebanese positions and therefore, they needs to be attacked right back.
FYI, Both Syria and Lebanon are the pawns of Iran.
**
There is nothing to heal.
While I don’t buy R_M’s simplistic and one-sided conspiracy theories, I have to agree that any definition which
as terrorism are flatly Orwellian, IMHO. They allow identical acts,
with identical aims and tactics, to be characterized differently, with an unwarranted difference in connotation. A government that mounts an effort to terrorize a civilian population is doing exactly the same thing as any other group that does so. The actions of governments are simply not inherently or automatically more legitimate than acts by anyone else (remember, the issue is the legitimacy of the act, not the process which allows certain people to decide to take particular actions.)
L_C, nice tu quoque, but I have no idea how that’s relevant. I was just pointing out the incorrectness of 2Thick’s claim that since Hizb’allah is in the Lebanese Parliament, they are not terrorists.
Yes, you’re mistake. Even assuming that it is Syrian land, why does a Lebanese terror group need to exist to fight for Syrian land?
Cite for an Israeli attack on a Lebanese position that wasn’t in direct retaliation for a Lebanese attack? Also, even if such attacks occur, how do they justify attacks on Israeli civilians?
You really like Iran, don’t you? Unfortunately your statement is factually untrue. Lebanon is under Syrian occupation. If either Syria or Lebanon were pawns of Iran, they would be Islamic fundamentalist states. Sorry for your pride.
It does not exist for Syria. They exist for Lebanon’s protection against a proven aggressive terrorist state.
**
There is no way of giving an objecive site for such an evet because both Israel and Lebanon are never at fault in their respective records.
Israel attacks and kills civilians, too. The difference is that Israel has the top of the line weaponry provided by the US’ 8 Billion dollars a year in handouts and guaranteed loans (so they can fly and find people they ‘say’ are enemies). If the Lebanese and Palestinian Arabs could attack Arab (since all true Jews are Arab) Israeli military, they would. They cannot reach them so civilians are their only choice. Both sides are guilty.
**
Iran is not a fundamentalist state. It is also a foolish assumption that one must convert a pawn in order to control them. You should read “the Art of War.” It will enlighten your dimness.
Wha…?
Absolutely zero excuse.
By the colloquial definition of the term, if not the strict one, it is. The Iranian mullahs that control the central apparati of government in Iran are religious conservatives who believe that state should be subordinated to “clerical” rule and that ideally such a religious regime should be extended throughout the Muslim world. Conservative theocrat = fundamentalist, by most definitions. Note a fundamentalist need not be a terrorist or violent at all to be a fundamentalist. Now if you said the majority of the Iranian people and even sizeable sections of the “clergy” are not fundamentalist ( or at least not in the same way as the current government ), you’d be correct.
Syria is far too cagey to be anyone’s pawn and Iran has minimal leverage over them. Iran can start trouble for Syria in Lebanon, but frankly even there ( especially there ), Syrian influence easily trumps Iranian.
I thought that I was dealing with learned people here. If you did not know that Arabs and Jews are of the same blood, then I have woefully overestimated the intelligence of this board’s members.
**
Then why is it that Israel gives that excuse when it kills 5 civilians for every one militant?
**
It is a theocratic democracy, just like Israel.
**
That is your opinion. The difference is that I have been to the region and know these things from experience.
Well, I’m sure many around these parts regard me as a bit thick.
If you’re referring to Hebrew-speaking Jews being a semitic language-speaking people like Arabs, certainly I am aware of that. As I am aware of the close affinities in other respects between those two groups. But a Norwegian that converts to Judaism is no less a Jew than anyone else.
I consider many of Israel’s tactics in the occupied territories excessive and heavy-handed. But this is the “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument all over again.
Theocratic democracy, yes. But the democratic part is overall subordinate to the theocratic. Israel is something of a mirror image, where the theocratic is overall subordinate to the democratic.
True enough.
I would have to submit that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have outlived their usefulness, should be disbanded, and let the PA work it out.
Otherwise it is oblivion, perhaps to us all.
You are completely contradicting yourself. You said before that they exist because Israel was occupying Lebanese land.
It would have been simpler to just say “I have no evidence for what I claimed.”
As Tamerlane explains, this is untrue.
Please restrict the insults to the Pit. While you’re right that one doesn’t always have to convert a pawn, Iran’s key role in funding and organizing Hizb’allah (whose declared goal is the formation of an Islamic fundamentalist state in Lebanon along the lines of Iran) proves that this is their goal.