Overall, the definition of what constitutes terrorism, as well as who is to be defined as an organization or agent of terror, has in the practice of the US Government been a matter of using whatever definition suits the purpose at hand while avoiding using a definition that would incriminate oneself or one’s own actions [x]
“Retail terrorism — like abduction or suicide bombing — is a tactic of the hardware have-nots. It gets all the attention. Wholesale terrorism — invasion and aerial warfare, for example — is the strategy of the haves…By some magic consensus wholesale terrorism never, never gets called terrorism.
In the U.S. we assume only the other guys use terrorism — never our side. Judging by our media and our politicians, terrorists are only those who oppose powerful military machines. Even if those terrorists are defending their land”
'Islamists' come late to a practice West has long justified for itself
To quote Robert Fisk, the longest-serving Western journalist in the Middle East. "[Terrorism] is not a definition. It is a political contrivance. 'Terrorists' are those who use violence against the side that is using the word."[xi]
As the lines change so that acts of protest involving no violence or threat of violence are punished and defined more harshly, people need to start thinking and talking about when and under what circumstances different measures of resistance and rebellion should be a public duty. It is still possible, and I think it is always healthy, to have such a public debate. In the end, individuals will be more willing to risk the consequences of violent or non-violent means of rebellion, if they feel that there is a silent agreement in the general public that such actions are both needed and will be followed by others.
Acts of rebellion involving violence and/or coercion should never be used unless all other viable means have been tried.
One of the most disgusting failures of both the US public, Congress and Administrations is the rejection of giving an international court jurisdiction to bring in, try and convict political leaders for crimes against international law. Had this not been the case, there is a high probability that many US political officials could have been tried and found guilty of such crimes.
Any fear that subjecting US laws to international laws and US political institutions to international jurisdiction would facilitate the rise of a malign One World Government, need to be weighed against the fact that what we are seeing now is the unfettered rise of a US run world – none the less likely to be judged unfavorably by history.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
