Poll: Can governments be guilty of "terrorism?"

[Chris Alger]

By this I don't mean support for terrorism, I mean actually committing it.

I define "terrorism" as deliberately targeting civilians or their property with lethal force for political purposes, specifically to terrify them so much they'll change their behavior and perhaps the policies or attitudes of their government.

The mass media and the US government tend to limit their discussion of "terrorism" to the non-state variety, so that governments with military forces cannot, by definition, be guilty of "terrorism." Title 22 of the U.S. Code, for example, defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

Do people agree that this make sense? (This has nothing to do, BTW, with the Haifa bombing or Israel's retalliatory raids).

[MMMMMM]

I don't think bulldozing a home is necessarily identical to terrorism, at least not to nearly the extent that deliberately killing civilians would be. Also as I understand it it is an attempt to discourage terrorism and support for terrorism because the threat of death is obviously more an inducement than a deterrent to would-be suicide bombers. And if a family supports a would-be suicide bomber in his preparation and quest, they are at least partially guilty too.

Your definition needs to be less broad, or at least more discriminating, IMO.

I notice the definition you cited from the U.S. code specifies "noncombatant targets" but YOU in your poll specified that noncombatant targets means also non-living non-combatant targets although that is not put forth in Title 22 of the U.S. code as you cited it. In other words the section you cited does not appear to include homes, schools, etc. so I am presuming that is an Alger insertion and a sly attempt to place destruction of homes on full par with deliberate murder of civilians in this discussion of terrorism.

[Chris Alger]

Your understanding of why Israel usually destroys houses is mistaken. The more common reason are the absence of building permits that Israel won't let Palestinians have.

I don't think bulldozing homes amounts to "lethal force" unless the people doing it should think people are in the home. Israel's home destruction policy is pretty brutal but I wouldn't label it "terrorism" in most cases.

Civilian property would be a civilian "target" under the statute. I specified it just to make it clear, not because destroying property is no more worse than destroying people (it isn't).

[ACPlayer]

Your poll is clearly biased to produce a desired result.

Tsk, tsk.

[Gamblor]

There is more bias here than on the BBC.

My personal favourite is the moral equivalence:
"Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian today" ignoring the fact that the Palestinian was a terrorist, as well as the shooting occuring in cold blood rather than the usual collateral damage experienced when terrorists are operating out of civilian homes. I don't remember anything about the "terrorist" Israeli army building bases in the middle of Tel Aviv to hide their operations.

On the other hand, it seems that some Israelis "were killed today in a market".

By whom, may I ask? Did it say that the Palestinian planned out this act for a week, packed his explosives with nails and shards of metal so that those not incinerated by the blast would simply be punctured throughout their internal organs, dressed as a religious Jew, boarded a bus at rush hour to catch as many Jews as possible, then prayed to Allah that his bomb goes off properly? Perhaps they simply forgot.

Look out for this sort of thing. This kind of journalism, rampant in CNN, BBC, and pretty much every UK newspaper, is what influences people people to leap to their conclusions - because they don't watch. They read a book and assume what they already believe to be true is true.

Assuming Chris is a lawyer as he has led us to believe (I think) he should be (if he is a GOOD lawyer) well versed in reading critically, as well as manipulating questions, polls, etc to produce a desired answer.

[ACPlayer]

[Phat Mack]

I've always thought of terrorism as an act designed to produce a reaction, as opposed to an act designed to produce an immediate military objective.

Any organization, governmental or not, can engage in terrorism. In one of his books, GTOT?, Mason talks of Churchill's decision to bomb civilian targets in Germany. This was done, according to Mason, to provoke the Germans to retaliate against civilian targets in Britain (reaction), thereby diverting them from bombing military targets. If this was indeed what happened, it would be a classic case of "terrorism".

[Chris Alger]

"Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian today" ignoring the fact that the Palestinian was a terrorist....

No such "news" report exists. Again, your examples of supposed US media bias against Israel are all fabricated.

[Chris Alger]

Why shouldn't that be called terrorism, or something worse? If a bunch of anti-Nazi Britons, acting on their own, had travelled to Germany and done the same, wouldn't that be terrorism? Why should Churchill avoid the moniker just because he uses planes?

[Gamblor]

CBS Feb 12 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/12/world/main540336.shtml)

"Israeli soldiers shot and killed an 8-year-old Palestinian boy during a raid on Tuesday"

"In Gaza, soldiers shot and killed a Hamas militant carrying a Kalashnikov rifle near the Kissufim crossing into Israel late Monday, the military said"

"Militant"? Don't you mean terrorist?

5 seconds that took me.

On the other hand, the AP reports on Oct 7, that

"An Israeli soldier was killed in an exchange of fire on the border with Lebanon on Monday..."

[nicky g]

"if a family supports a would-be suicide bomber in his preparation and quest, they are at least partially guilty too. "

Whether they do or not, their house still gets bulldozed.

[nicky g]

Is this the full quote you're referring to?

"Already this week, there has been a flare-up on the border with Lebanon, in which an Israeli soldier was killed in an exchange of fire with the Lebanese group Hizbollah"

Independent article (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=451362)

It makes it clear who killed him; it leaves open the question of who started the skirmish - probably because it can't definitively say. If you search "A Palestinian was killed" or similar you find plenty of examples. It's simply the use of the passive voice.

Your remarks prove you know very little about the British press. The majority of papers are right-wing and largely pro-Israeli. The reason the Guardian is well-known is because it's an outstanding paper; the reason the BBC is known is because it's the best example of impartiality in the English language. Of course you don't believe that because it doesn't toe your line 100% of the time.

[MMMMMM]

The sometimes arbitrary unfairness is noted, nicky. However I still don't think destroying homes is the equivalent of premeditated murder of innocents. Also it is rather puzzling to try to come up with any other sort of deterrent at all when the bombers themselves look forward to death.

[nicky g]

"However I still don't think destroying homes is the equivalent of premeditated murder of innocents"

Nor do I. THat doesn't make it justifiable.

"Also it is rather puzzling to try to come up with any other sort of deterrent at all when the bombers themselves look forward to death."

Then how about removing the motivation; ie the occupation? - especially given this deterrent clearly doesn't work.

[MMMMMM]

"Then how about removing the motivation; ie the occupation?"

The problem here is very deep and it is related to the fact that the Palestinians (and the Arabs in general) are not truly reliable partners for peace with Israel. Their goals are still to take all of Israel back, by force if necessary. The Hamas Charter and their suicide bombings are but one manifestation of this. So when Israel cedes territries she leaves herself open to attacks from a closer vantage point, and such attacks always eventually materialize.

If the Palestinians would actually mean it when they promise no more attacks, it woulfd be one thing. But their overall political goal is still sadly and unconditionally to reclaim ALl of Israel. Until they truly, in their hearts of hearts, accept the territorial integrity of Israel, I see vitually no hope for peace. And I really don't think removing the occupation would result in the Palestinians ceasing all attacks.

[Phat Mack]

[MMMMMM]

nicky, from what I've read, I really don't think the BBC is anywhere close to being impartial. It is also funded by public tax monies, right? and therefore is automatically somewhat tied to the liberal platform of higher taxes and more government control (from which it is funded). Again, I don't see how "liberal" ever came to be so grossly distorted in this way, but that's another subject.

I guess BBC might be more unbiased than NPR in the USA, which is largely taxpayer-funded, but NPR is IMO more biased than even FOX. From what I've heard in reports and interviews, "National Palestine Radio" is not too bad a description of it when NPR covers the Palestinian/Israeli conflict.

[nicky g]

"and therefore is automatically somewhat tied to the liberal platform of higher taxes and more government control (from which it is funded). "

You might as well say that a commercial channel is guaranteed to be biased in favour of neoliberalism. If you want to provide evidence that the BBC is biased , go ahead. In my opinion, not having to account to commercial sponsors guarantees a lot more independence. Fox ultimately has to do what Murdoch, who has well-known political opinions and thousands of commercial interests, tells them. The BBC has no vested interests.

[Chris Alger]

But you said the media "ignored" what he was, and now you're changing it from a quibble over "militant" versus "terrorist."

And what makes him a terrorist? Because he's a Palestinian! If he crosses the border and kills Israelis for "disobeying orders," he's a terrorist. If Israelis cross the border and kill Palestinians for "disobeying orders," and Palestinians shoot back, the Palestinians are still "terrorists." Other people have the right to defend their countries from foreign invaders (UN Charter, Art. 51). Palestinians don't, in accordance with your master race theory of Zionism.

[Chris Alger]

One could, of course, look at the evidence in the article and contrast it with other sources for credibility. What you get from the right, however, is that unless the source is the government or the government-supporting press, everything they say is "biased" and not worth considering. It's one reason right-wingers are so ignorant of the world around them.

[Chris Alger]

"The problem here is very deep and it is related to the fact that the Palestinians (and the Arabs in general) are not truly reliable partners for peace with Israel. Their goals are still to take all of Israel back, by force if necessary."

In other words, they're "unreliable" partners of the Israeli government because a few of them think and act like the Israeli government and it's US supporters, and must therefore be crushed.

[MMMMMM]

I fail to see the connection.

They say one thing, then turn right around and attack. Not exactly confidence-inspiring for making or relying on peace agreements.

[adios]

"Fox ultimately has to do what Murdoch, who has well-known political opinions and thousands of commercial interests, tells them."

In the US NPR which receives ferderal funding is well known for having a liberal bias. Still say that FoxNews is for the most part balanced. Not perfect I guess (don't watch it that much) and perhaps not great journalism. Don't think the media is controlled by their sponsors that much but they are influenced I suppose to some degree. A bit late (perhaps early, early morning) on the other side of the pond isn't it?

[Rushmore]

Nobody has asked yet, so I will:

Does dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki qualify as terrorism?

What about the firebombing of Dresden?

Please do not present as justification for the atomic bombings in Japan the fact that there were countless American troops on transports in the Sea of Japan, and that ultimately, Truman's action "saved lives."

This argument always brings up the bile in me.

I don't think there were too many children, handicapped, or elderly out there in the Sea of Japan.

No, I'd say the point was to terrify.

And Dresden? Why incinerate all of the people of Dresden, if not to terrify? Did we really need to destroy those museums, and the citizenry was just collateral damage?

Yes, I'd say that governments can definitely be guilty of committing terrorist acts.

But I guess you were talking about Israel.

OK. then. Let's recap. Both the United States government AND the government of the nation in the Middle East that we seem to have decided to nearly single-handedly finance have perpetrated atrocious acts of terrorism against noncombatants in attempts to further political agendas.

Welcome to History of The World.

[Gamblor]

If you are willing to accept Netanyahu:
Netanyahu (http://www.netanyahu.org/bbcbias.html)

Here is a full website devoted to bbc bias:
BBC Watch (http://www.bbcwatch.com)

But this is the best of example of outright media fraud concerning Israel.

The Photo that started it all (http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/reports/The_Photo_that_Started_it_All.asp)

And now I wait for Chris to find some pathetic, stretching-the-fabric-of-credibility reason why you shouldn't trust these sites.

[Chris Alger]

Of course you see it, you're just refusing to admit it by changing your reason about why Palestinians are "unreliable" partners.

To make it simple: if the PA is an unreliable peace partner because many Palestinians refuse to acknowledge the right of a Jewish state to exist, then Israel is unreliable because it refuses to acknowldge the right of a Palestinian state to exist.

[Chris Alger]

This is the reason that "terrorism" isn't a very useful concept and in current parlance has assumed an Orwellian quality. Of course Hiroshima was a far greater act of terrorism than all non-state terrorism that's infected the Middle East -- and probably everywhere -- in recent decades. But those that perpretrated it aren't denounced as "terrorists," but are accorded the respect of statesmen. After all, unlike "terrorists," they had defensible if perhaps flawed reasons (they had imperfect information, suffered intense political pressures, had better political goals, the "other side started it," etc.). But when it comes to smaller scale, retail terrorists, to even discuss the motives and reasoning, the political goals and desperation behind such actions amounts to an unconscionable legitimation of their methods.

You see the results of this all the time. One is the stifling of inquiry and rational thought and discourse, shown by the thread about Syria sitting on an antiterrorism committee. Another is that the U.S. is supposedly at "war" with a mode of violence the it often embraces, allowing propagandists of totalitarian bent to tar their critics with a "soft-on-terrorism" brush to discourage them from being heard. (E.g., the Wall St. Journal claiming that Joe Wilson "doesn't support" Bush's "war against terrorism" because he opposed the conquest of Iraq). People wear T-shirts with targets over the faces of relatively small-time terrorists as they walk into polling places to vote for much worse ones. And on and on, all symptoms of an unconscious culture drunk with self-righteousness, armed to the teeth and poised for ruin.

[andyfox]

Strategic bombing was developed precisely to terrorize civilian populations so that infratructure would be destroyed and they would implore their governments to surrender. This was explicit in the literature, most famously exposited by Giulio Douhet, Hugh Trenchard and Billy Mitchell.

Of course governments can be guilty of terrorism. In fact, they commit far more terrorist acts that result in millions of more casualties than those individuals who are commonly referred to as terrorists.

[ACPlayer]

They say one thing, then turn right around and attack. Not exactly confidence-inspiring for making or relying on peace agreements

Now I am really, really confused. i thought all along you supported the Israeli positions.

[nicky g]

Link one: Orlan Guerin, in reporting violence against Israelis, refers to violence against Palestinians. It's what's known as "balance" and "context."

Link 2: A report which basically states "The BBC does not toe the Israeli line". Outrageous. For instance one of its criticisms is that the BBC describes the Occupied Territories as "Occupied Territories", rather than disputed territories, and out-and-out pro-Israeli term. I don't have time to go into the repeated deliberatley misleading comments and selective quotation in any depth. Here's a perfect example though, quoting a BBC profile of Arafat:

[ QUOTE ]
"But when the peace process failed to live up to expectations, more and more Palestinians lost patience with his mercurial and dictatorial style of leadership"

Rather than criticise Arafat's dictatorship, it is painted mildly as a character defect, with a hint that it is anyway only the result of the failure of the peace process, which could perhaps be blamed on Israel"

[/ QUOTE ]

Their conclusion is completely absurd and the quoted text does not remotely support it. How describing someone's leadership as "mercurial and dictatorial" can be perceived as anything other than critical is beyond me. There's no mention of Israel, or whether it's Israel's fault.

The report, while quoting every section it deems to be favourable to Arafat, ignores the following quote from the profile for example:

"From his earliest days, Mr Arafat has indulged in the weaving of myths about his life, insisting, for example, that he was born in Jerusalem even though his birth, in 1929, is clearly recorded in Egypt."

Again, information about Arafat that is clearly portrays him in a negative light. It goes on to describe him as autocratic and engaging in bribery. It also describes him in more postitive terms such as "personal courage", which is obviously true. Again, this what is known as balance in journalistic circles. If the Israel often looks bad in BBC reports it's because Israel routinely engages in behaviour that goess against the norms of accepted behaviour. If Israel engages in collective punishment or reprisals against civilians, a strategy it openly admits to using, then the BBC has a duty to report it. If you watch the BBC you'll see that suicide bombings always get far more coverage than the killing of Palestinians. The BBC always reports a suicide bombing, regardless of whether there are any caualties. It routinely fails to report the deaths of Palestinian civilians (I doubt it could keep up with them), in line with nearly every major Western news organisation.

Link 3: I fail to see what this has to with the BBC. The fact that the New York Times, not exactly a bastion of pro-Palestinian symapthies, was the first to run it suggests that it was a straightforward mistake.

[MMMMMM]

ACPlayer, you are indeed confused, obtuse, and probably cemented in your erroneous views. Now we can add a touch of troll to your description too.

[adios]

This is a great point you make IMO. My take is these tactics have generally done the opposite of what was intended i.e. strengthened the resolve of the enemies civilian population. In my mind it renders these tactics to be an excercise in futility at best, genocide at worst. IMO it also points to the failed strategy if you will of suicide terrorism to achieve it's goals. Has it not strengthened the resolve of those it's perpetrated against?

[Chris Alger]

Other than the BBC report, you've got Netanyahu complaining that a BBC reporter claiming that Israel is responsible for the Palestinians Israelis kill, and a miscaptioned photo from the Times that was duly corrected. Hardly evidence of systematic "bias" against Israel.

The BBC report is revealing in that although it's extensively footnoted, many of its most foreceful and damning claims have no source at all. For example: "The programme omits any reference to Arafat’s recently revealed active support of terrorism." No supporting facts, no footnote. This is the sort of thing that gets high school students a "C" on their term papers.

Another cheap trick is to say one thing in the text of the document, dropping a footnote to something else entirely. For example, it condemns the BBC for omitting evidence linking Arafat to "numerous suicide attacks." The full sentence reads as follows: "Omission of reference to evidence linking Arafat to numerous suicide attacks and his history of failure to punish bombers creates a misleading impression."

Let's set aside the absudity of how Arafat is supposed to "punish" suicide bombers. When you go to the footnote, you read this: "Arafat is reputed to give contradictory statements on terrorism depending on the language in which he is speaking. 'I have sat and watched him give speeches (in Arabic) in which he calls for Jihad on a platform with the surviving family members of the suicide bombers' Richard Perle Chairman, Defense Policy Board, Department of Defense - PM 26 June 2002." (my empahsis). So the "evidence linking" Arafat to "numerous suicide attacks" consists of statements Arafat is "reputed" to have made, none of which are quoted and only one of which is described -- by pro-Israeli hawk and Lijud supporter Richard Perle. And even that statement says nothing about suicide bombing or terrorism, but alleges that Arafat called for "jihad." So the text promises "evidence" linking Arafat to "numerous" suicide bombings, the source is a second hand account of Arafat encouraging Palestinians to "struggle" against Israel. This is what passes for honest and intelligent use of sources by the Zionist right.

[Gamblor]

And the left's assumption that in the end, all the Palestinians want is peace, is based where?

On Arafat?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[nicky g]

Agreed.

[andyfox]

Robert Pape's book Bombing to Win examines specific cases of strategic bombing and shows why it generally fails, but has, in some cases, been successful. Not terrifically stimulating reading though.

A wonderfully written book, which addresses both the facts and the moral issues, is Michael S. Sherry's The Rise of American Air Power. Just out is Herman Knell's To Destroy a City about allied bombing of his home in WWII. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0307g.asp. There's a new book about Billy Mitchell coming out in January called The Lion Killers. Mitchell was certainly an interesting guy, hopefully the book will be as well.

Many people don't realize that the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in a sense just a continuation of the bombing of Japan's cities that General Lemay had been conducting. American strategists discussed the flamability of Japan's "paper" cities during the 1930s well before we entered the war. More people died in one night in Tokyo by conventional firebombing than died in Hiroshima. The only three cities that were not firebombed were Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were being "saved" for the A-bombs, and Kyoto, because Secretary of War Stimson thought it's cultural heritage was worthy of saving.

[ACPlayer]

Well, if you dont see that you described Israel, just as much as you described the Palestinian terrorists in your quoted comment then--

I hereby return the compliment you made to me. And add to it, that you do a great imitation of an Ostrich.

of course, I still have no idea what a troll is.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]


of course, I still have no idea what a troll is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Allow me to enlighten you AC.

Internet Trolls (http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm)

[ACPlayer]

Ah, thank you.

I knew one of them would find a definition for me.

[MMMMMM]

So you actually believe that it's also true that the Palestinians just want peace, but Israel just keeps attacking? L-O-L

[ACPlayer]

You are acutely obtuse, have an IQ of 90 and the reasoning ability of a 5 year old (darn, I just insulted 5 year olds).

I never said that.

I said that that particular quote fit Israel to a T. I did not say whether or not it fit the Palestinian morons.

[MMMMMM]

I was being charitable by offering the comparison. As a stand-alone statement, yours is even more ridiculous.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, thank you.

I knew one of them would find a definition for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't calling me "one of them" being a bit racist AC? As well as perputuating your troll image?

[Cyrus]

Thanks, Gamblor.

I always enjoy your posts. Really.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif