OpEdNews Op Eds

US War Terrorism And Justification

By       Message Kamala Sarup     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Author 5249
Become a Fan
  (7 fans)
- Advertisement -
US War Terrorism And Justification

By Kamala Sarup

Anyone who supports terrorists is a terrorist too. I suppose one could define terrorists as of the first order, second order, etc., but that gets too fine for me. However, we have to be careful to distinguish people or groups.  In all countries, some groups are positively terrorists, but not necessarily the government, meaning its leaders and administrators.

It's easy, but illogical, to go from individual actions, to group actions. Ascribing terrorism requires great care. 

"The problem I have with explicit or implied definitions of terrorist here and elsewhere is that the definition includes anyone who kills someone the definer likes. Therefore, the definitions of terrorist become contradictory. Terrorist and terrorism then becomes merely pejoratives to sling at each other.

I always liked the definition by Salman Rushdie of terrorism as the "murder of the innocents". Therefore, a terrorist is one who murders innocents. "Innocents" in this context are those who are not actively engaged in warfare, i.e., noncombatants. By contrast, military and police and the politicians who are engaged in warfare are *NOT* the innocents; they are combatants. Terrorists themselves would have to considered combatants for the sake of consistency," said Stanly to me recently.

Using the Rushdie definition, when the combatants of one group kill those in similar groups , then this is terrorism. Let's call this kind of murder. Using the Rushdie definition, the only way I can see to define a "terrorist" would be one in which its terror direct the killing of innocents (noncombatants). " he further added.

- Advertisement -

Stanly further added "Using the Rushie definition, the 9/11 murderers were terrorists. So were their directors. Going back into history, when the USSR under Stalin killed invading Germans, it was not practicing terrorism; it practiced warfare.  Continuing, the US and Iraqi governments' military and police killing of Iraqi terrorists and vice-versa is warfare, not terrorism. When either of the combatants intentionally kill innocent civilians, it is terrorism. When they inadvertently kill innocent civilians in the process of killing or capturing each other, it is not.

We see that every day on the political scene: The single reason for US waging wars in Iraq, for example, is to protect the democracy and oil in that region.  So all this relevant talk about to establishing democracy and freedom, improving civil rights, removing a vicious dictator, etc., etc.  

- Advertisement -

 

View Ratings | Rate It

http://mediaforfreedom.com

Journalist and editor Ms. Kamala Budhathoki Sarup with a M.A. in journalism and a post graduate diploma in Mass Communication specializes in reporting news and writing stories covering Freedom, Peace, Public health, Democracy, Women/Children, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon


Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Women and Literacy

Education Is Important In A Democracy

The rain is as beautiful

Democracy vs Communism: Lessons from History

Early marriage Causes Harm To Women