US Govt Declares Itself Terrorist State

[Dboy]

US Govt Declares Itself Terrorist State - by DBoy

Although there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism, it is generally understood that an act of violence commited against an innocent civilian population, or where a use of violence would reasonably be expected to harm innocent civilians, is terrorism. If the act is committed, sanctioned, or enabled by a government, then that action is state-sponsored terrorism. Legitimate military action can be defined as violence between armed opponents where the use of violence is not reasonably expected to harm innocent civilians. A "state" action is one conducted by a sovereign government. A "guerrilla" action is one conducted by a non-governmental entity. This represents my definition of terrorism, combined from the term "terrorism" as defined in the PATRIOT Act, and well as UN documents and other texts.

On Wednesday, September 6th 2006, the US Senate rejected a move by Democrats to stop the Pentagon from using cluster bombs near civilian targets and to cut off sales unless purchasers abide by the same rules. This vote was made in response to the US State Department announcement last month that it is investigating whether Israel misused American-made cluster bombs in civilian areas of Lebanon.

After the Israeli attacks against the civilian population of Lebanon, unexploded cluster bomblets are now widely distributed throughout south Lebanon, and have turned the region into a vast minefield. The United Nations Mine Action Coordination Center reported finding evidence that Israel used three types of U.S.-made cluster bombs during the war with Hezbollah militants. Israel also manufactures its own cluster munitions.

In my opinion, this action by the US Senate represents a pro-terrorist agenda, insuring that the US government can continue its state-sponsored terror activities in support of the genocide against the non-christian populations of Lebanon and Palestine by the Israeli Government. It is well past time that all American citizens wake from their slumber and work to remove terrorist actors, religious fundamentalists, corporate fascists, and traitors from positions of power. It is only by learning to live in peace that we can stop the terrorist threat, and the current rogue actors currently in control of the US Government are the largest threat to peace that mankind has ever known.

Then how do you define war (in the technical sense, not in the nonsense way the US refers to the "war on drugs" or the "war on terrorism")?

See BBC News:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5321606.stm

The exact location of these prisons is unknown but suggestions have been made that they exist in Thailand, Afghanistan and several Eastern European nations. You may ask 'why place these secret prisons in countries other than the USA'? The answer, I suspect, is two fold. Firstly it's a case of out of sight = out of mind. Can you imagine the stink if residents in Texas found they had a secret prison filled with terrorist suspects hidden amongst the oil wells and cattle ranches? The other reason is that they can torture confessions out of suspects to their hearts content without any real comeback from those who count - the voters of America. If it aint happening on American soil it aint happening, or at least the voters will care less about it.

For those who say 'terrorists don't play by the rules so why should we?'. The answer is simple, we all abhor terrorism of all kinds and rely on our democratically elected governments to protect us - but if our own governments are picking people up off the street, whisking them to military airports, removing them from their own country, placing them in indefinite confinement, torturing them with dog's and physical and sexual abuse, what are we left with? We are left with government by terrorism. The 'War on Terror' becomes the war BY terror.

Oh, on a side issue. I know the US has voted to continue the sale of cluster bombs. These are the bombs that were used by Israel against the civilian population of Lebanon and has now reduced much of the border area to nothing but a minefield of unexploded bombs. How many innocents will lose lives over the next few years due to the detonation of these terible weapons.

[Surfcrest]

You bring up a great point DBoy.

Is the nation that uses the weapon responsible as well as the nation that sold the weapon.
As it is probably a company based in a certain nation, are they now all three implicated
and to what extent?

It goes back to the concept of gun control, is it the nation's responsibility?
Or does the killer hold sole responsibility?

Perhaps this needs to be tested in U.S. courts, although I doubt it would go far
entrenched as the 2nd Amendment.

Surfcrest

Perhaps this needs to be tested in U.S. courts, although I doubt it would go far entrenched as the 2nd Amendment.
The Second Amendment is well past its use-by date. It was put in place to ensure a citizen army could muster at a moment's notice without having to worry about getting weapins from a central repository. The US hasn't had a citizen army for some time now

The cluster bombs that now litter Southern Lebanon were dropped in the last few hours of the conflict when the Israelis knew that a deal was iminent.
There is a reason for this. The plan was to make s strip of land (probably as far as the Litani River) uninhabitable- a "buffer-zone". This is why the Israelis spent so much time and money destroying villages even when there were no Resitance fighters present. And the infra-structure too, of course.
And this is why the Lebanese, encouraged by Hezbollah, got into their cars and drove home the very day the ceasefire was announced, despite the danger.
The policy of creating a buffer-zone between residents and the Israeli border has been tried before, in Gaza. Vast areas have been laid waste, fields, orchards, farms destroyed and homes flattened by constant shelling from artillery. 200 dead, more than 30 of them children, in the last few weeks alone.
The Lebanese were wise to this and scored yet another remarkable victory over the fifth largest army in the world. And their backers in the US too, of course.

I notice Dboy hasn't been able to come up with a definition of war yet that distinguishes it from his definition of terrorism

[Surfcrest]

The Second Amendment is well past its use-by date. It was put in place to ensure a citizen army could muster at a moment's notice without having to worry about getting weapins from a central repository. The US hasn't had a citizen army for some time now

As an outsider looking in, I wonder about that sometimes.
There was a time that Soviet invasion upon US soil could have possibly
been (although remotely) something that might have happened.
You think as a foreign nation occupying the US as the US is currently
occupying Iraq, would it be any easier an occupation?
The non-military fire-power within the US in hand guns might
be equal to or beyond the military itself.
Would that be something an administration would really
want to consider changing, despite the crime?
Obviously, not as a priority.

Surfcrest

[Dboy]

I notice Dboy hasn't been able to come up with a definition of war yet that distinguishes it from his definition of terrorism

Had not responded until now due to the fact that I was busy getting layed off today. That was fun. They flew 2 executives in from the "home office" to bring the axe down on me. The team I started up 2 years ago was completly shut down, which sucks cuz we were doing a good job. Truth is I'm happy to be away from that place. I suppose a stronger man would have just quit when it was obvious that it was time to go. I will be taking some time off, and plan on seeing as much of the world as I can afford to. I trust absolutely nothing about what this government (US) and media tell us about this planet and its peoples so I want to go found out for myself.

I was certainly wondering how this board would respond to a post like that. I wrote it to provoke a response and discussion. I'm not sure what to make of the generally favorable responses.

Anyway homintern, that is a good question. I'm not pulling my definitions out of my ass, I lifted bits from various documents that seemed to make sense to me. I even read through some Nuremberg docs. In my opinion when the US uses "war" as in "war on drugs", "war on christmas" (yeah we have that hehe), etc. it is metaphor meant to confuse the population. Terrorism is a *tactic*, not a group of evil men with guns. Drugs are various plants, chemical, spores. I've never seen a cannabis plant carrying an assault rifle. My point is that I think its dumb using the word "war" that way.

Did a quick search on war (google) and I found this definition repeated in multiple documents:

war 1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

So homintern, what's your point? I'm open to debate. "Parties" definitely sends this definition into a gray area. I think it would be constructive to create a non-biased definition of terrorism. If someone tries to do something like: "if I do it then its war, but if you do it then its terrorism"..thats just a bullshit definition. A definition doesn't change based on who's doing the thing being defined. You might be questioning "when does war become terrorism?" Or maybe "were the nuclear strikes on Japan terrorism?" I actually have an answer for that one. As I understand it, during WWII the Japanese Premier declared *all* Japanese citizens to be members of the Japanese armed forces, required to defend Japan against any enemy power (I cannot cite a source on this, its just something I recall..can anyone verify?) Of course it could be argued the other way, that from an ethics point of view, a 4 y.o girl dying of radiation burns cannot be called a combatant even if her own government declares her to be one.


Dboy

So homintern, what's your point? I'm open to debateHow do you distinguish between war and terrorism when it comes to civilian casualties? Frankly the points you make about casualies and terrorism could equally be made about warfare. People get hurt

[RonanTheBarbarian]

I would say that war is basically a "state of conflict".

Terrorism (or guerrila warfare) is a tactic in a war/conflict that uses unconventional ways to advance the "terrorist's" military aims in the war/conflict.

Generally terrorism is used in a situation where there is a considerable asymmetry in the power between the two warring parties. The weaker party often embraces terrorism as a tactic. One probblem with is that in terrorism (unlike conventional warfare), women and children and the innocent generally tend to be killed in terrorist action, compared to conventional warfare, where armies tend only to kill professional soldiers on the other side (there are many unfortunate exception to this of course).

Notable examples of the succesful use of terrorism would include the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921), De Gaulle's French Resistance use of terrorism in the 1940's in France against the German boccupying powers, and the Jewish resistance (led by Menachem Begin) to the British in Israel in 1947.

Of course, as soon as they were in a position of power, the French Gaullists and Israeli Likudists abandoned it as a tactic, as it is more dangerous and less succesful generally than conventional warfare.

This happened to be convenient for them later, because coincidentally, both De Gaulle and Begin (and also to a certain extant de Valera in Ireland) had to face terrorist problems of their own in later years, so their later-day embracing of conventional warfare enable them to claim the high moral ground in their condemnation of the civilian casualties of the Algerian Nationalists and the PLO, respectively.


This conversion has been quite a common occurance in the 20th century, actually. Another example of it is how the American government's active support of terrorist groups such as the Contras in Nicaragua and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan did not inhibit the US government from declaring (with a straight face) a "War on Terrorism" when they themselves suffered from this conflict strategy in the early 21st century.

[RonanTheBarbarian]

Post deleted: Double post.

"Generally terrorism is used in a situation where there is a considerable asymmetry in the power between the two warring parties. The weaker party often embraces terrorism as a tactic. One probblem with is that in terrorism (unlike conventional warfare), women and children and the innocent generally tend to be killed in terrorist action, compared to conventional warfare, where armies tend only to kill professional soldiers on the other side (there are many unfortunate exception to this of course)" (quote RTBarbarian).

As you say RTB, there are many exceptions to this definiton of difference between what defines war and what defines terrorism. The British (allies) bombing of Nuremburg, Berlin and Dresden during WWII are such examples. In Dresden, which had an absence of a direct military presence, almost 25,000 out of 28,000 houses in the inner city area were destroyed and conservative estimates (allied est.) place the death toll at between 25,000 - 35,000 men, women and children but other figures suggest that upwards of 135,000 people died, possibly 300,000. There were/are still arguments that this could/should have constituted a war crime. The German bombings by the use of the V2 missile of, mainly, the cities of London and Antwerp are another example of a state terrorising and killing civilians indiscrminately. Is there need to mention the US nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where over 215,000 civilians died? Further, couldn't the case be made that if Japan had done this to, say, New York and Los Angeles, their leaders would have been convicted of war crimes just for these events alone and subsequently hanged.

The majority of wars are fought over land, resources, religion, ideology, race, perceived threat or even the mental illness of a leader. But you could also state that these are the reasons why terrorist organisations form and strike. Historically, the line between war and terror is blurred and it is normally the one with superior power or superior access to the media organisations or indeed the victor who defines what is war and what is terrorism.

There is that old saying that 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. Such an example would be Margaret Thatcher's constant referral to Nelson Mandela and the ANC as a terrorist/terrorist organisation.

(figures obtained through Wikipedia on-line encyclopedia)

Perhaps I may be allowed a personal reminiscence in support of Fatman's comment?
In June, I was passing through the notorious Qalandia checkpoint which the Isreaelis have built-using US dollars granted for humanitarian aid-on Palestinian land between Occpied Jerusalem and Ramallah. It is an enormous concrete bunker filled with electronic gates, armed adolescent soldiers (some of therm Ethiopian "Fallusha"- and there's an interesting story for another time) and loudspeakers, which boom out instructions to the Palestinian children , women and men in aggressive Hebrew. It is a genuinely disturbing experience for a non-Israeli like myself to encounter the racist hatred of these soldiers. And, of course, it's far worse for Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
I watched a poor woman with a baby in a buggy struggling unsuccessfully to push her child through one of the electronic gates. It was late at night and none of us wanted to be in the dark, surrounded by theses lawless soldiers and the armed Zionist militia they protect. I can assure you from previous experience that it's like being a civil rights worker in "Mississipi Burning."
While the woman struggled and we tried to help, a group of arrogant Israeli soldiers lounged in their air-conditioned guard room, smoking, listening to music. All that was required was for a button to be pressed that would open another, larger channel.
I looked into the eyes of one and asked- very politely since he was armed- "Can't you let her through?"
He took my UK passport and sneered.
"They are all terrorists. You should know that. What are you doing here anyway?"
I've answered that insolent youth's question many times in my mind since, but on that occasion, in that terrifying place, late at night, surrounded by armed men who hate every thing I believe in, I said nothing and taking my passport was able , with some Palestinian men, to dismantle the buggy and get the women through. The soldiers, their feet on tables, never moved.
Although the wall is built in Palestine and has Palestinians living on both sides (if you can call it living), the soldiers claim that it is there to stop terrorists like the woman and her baby.
On the other side of the checkpoint I looked up at the stars and prayed that the men behind me were from the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.
If I were forty years younger and a Palestinian....I think you can work the rest out.

[Dboy]

Nelson: I'm really impressed with your knowledge of the Israel/Palestine issue. I'm amazed that you've been able to witness these things close up. Wish you'd write more. We could all benefit from your experiences.

Dboy

Thank you Dboy.
I've been writing about Palestine for more than three years on this board, its predecessors and on Gaybutton. I assume at least some of this is in the archives. I always write under the same name.
I've spent a considerable amount of time there over the past few years but do not claim to be an expert. However, I experience life there with Palestinians and this has provided me with a sometimes painful perspective on the sufferings of those I regard as my friends. I can assure you that every minute I spend there is indelilibly etched in my memory and that much of what I remember (only a small amount of which appears on this board) can only be written of with tears in my eyes.
I do not believe that I can ever do justice to the enormity of what is happening to the heroic people of Palestine whose generosity towards me, a Briton, is astonishing, and I mourn the silence of the world community which observes their sufferings with such disdain.

I mourn the silence of the world community which observes their sufferings with such disdain.I for one remain silent and disdainful because I regard both sides as living happily with a large chip on their shoulder as that's their most comfortable position. The history of the region has for hundreds if not thousands of years been one of perpetual internecine warfare; regrettably whenever others get involved they end up to their armpits in shit (which is what is happening to the Americans in Iraq). The option of leaving them alone to kill each other willy-nilly is a popular one, but as impractical as the same solution as proposed for Northern Ireland. Apart from lots of Semites hating each other with a passion, the Middle East is complicated by two groups of Moslems (Shias and Sunnis) who hate each other and, when it's to their advantage, alternately unite in hate against Israel or side with Israel against each other

The colonisation of Palestine by Jews is akin to the colonisation of Ireland by Protestants in Stuart times, with equally common results. Getting misty-eyed (and therefore partisan) about what's happening to the ordinary citizen may help our own personal feel-good factor, but arguing from the resultant gut-feel will never result in a lasting peace (if such a thing as actually achievable, as opposed to an uneasy ceasefire)

If Homintern were living under a brutal, foreign occupation that impinged on every aspect of his life- economic, social, political, legal- he too may find a "chip on his shoulder." I suspect that his first encounter with an armed soldier at the end of his road who tells him that, no, he can't go to work, or can't keep that appointment at the hospital and that his home is scheduled for demolition for "security" reasons, would make him think again.
Instead, he, like me, lives comfortably, freely and, it appears, smugly and complacently.

Instead, he, like me, lives comfortably, freely and, it appears, smugly and complacently.Yes, like you I am smug and complacent. However I too live under a brutal regime that has just told foreigners that they're not welcome. It's called Thailand

[Dboy]

Yes, like you I am smug and complacent. However I too live under a brutal regime that has just told foreigners that they're not welcome. It's called Thailand

Ouch, that one hurt:-) These rules are probably going to be really annoying, but you can't really blame them. We haven't really been the best-behaved guests. I do think that if one truely wants to live in Thailand long-term, the best thing to be doing is to find a way to positively contribute to the Kingdom, and not just by buying stuff. I don't think these should be requirements for a Visa, but should be done by a guest in order to foster goodwill between peoples. I suggest any of these as being helpful:

1) learn Thai
2) eat local foods and cut back on the ahan farang
3) study buddhism
4) learn about and appreciate Thai culture
5) live in an pre-existing structure rather than a new house; made in Thai style (no gated communities built for farang; these communities are ugly and annoying)
6) volunteer in your community

In other words, do things that illustrate why Thai people are helped by your being in the Kingdom.


Dboy

[Dboy]

Instead, he, like me, lives comfortably, freely and, it appears, smugly and complacently.

We Americans seem to be completely unaware of the misery that our government inflicts on the rest of the planet so that we can live this way; and then are shocked by the results (9/11). "Why do they hate us?" is about the dumbest question I've ever heard, and it was repeated many times after 9/11. I think "smug" is a good description of what I see in this part of the country at least.

Dboy

...crap, Dboy. Do the same rules apply to foreigners in your own country? My point, however, all too subtle no doubt, is that Nelson appears not to have visited Thailand recently, and writes only about Palestine which is doubtless a harmless form of occupational therapy for him but like all obsessions, a bit wearing for the general reader

I should say that I know enough Thai to get by, I know enough about Buddhism to know that the hybrid Buddhism/animism as practised in Thailand is about as close to a lofty religion as pre-Reformation Catholicism at its worst, that volunteering in your community is against Thailand's visa regulations (unpaid work is still work), that studying Thai culture means that my appreciation diminishes rather than (as you naively expect) increases. Shall I go on? Overall Thais are dyed-in-the-wool chauvinists and there's not much you can do about the one-eyed people (as Nelson himself is an admirable example)

[Dboy]

Do the same rules apply to foreigners in your own country?

Not a rule, just a way to get past the Thai fantasyland and into the real Thailand, as a native would experience it. We're ALL immigrants in America to some extent so its a bit different here. Some recent immigrants go all out with the American experience, and others don't.

Nelson brought up palestine because its an example of the terms we were discussing in this thread: war, terrorism, etc. This is not really a Thai-related thread, which is why its in the global forum.

By the way, I do agree with you that Thai buddhism is really weird, especially when they blend it with animism. But religions are generally designed for common people, not the educated classes. So one way to get a religion accepted into a culture is to blend it with what the people are already practicing. Which is why christmas is celebrated at the same time as winter solstice. And further, in christianity, "the burning bush" in the bible could be considered animism.


Dboy

[cottmann]

I notice Dboy hasn't been able to come up with a definition of war yet that distinguishes it from his definition of terrorism

Noam Chomsky said:
The U.S. is officially committed to what is called тАЬlowтАУintensity warfare.тАЭ ThatтАЩs the official doctrine. If you read the definition of lowтАУintensity conflict in army manuals and compare it with official definitions of тАЬterrorismтАЭ in army manuals, or the U.S. Code, you find theyтАЩre almost the same. Terrorism is the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations in an effort to achieve political, religious, or other aims. ThatтАЩs what the World Trade Center bombing was, a particularly horrifying terrorist crime. And thatтАЩs official doctrine. I mentioned a couple of examples. We could go on and on. ItтАЩs simply part of state action, not just the U.S. of course. Furthermore, all of these things should be well known. ItтАЩs shameful that theyтАЩre not. Anybody who wants to find out about them can begin by reading a collection of essays published ten years ago by a major publisher called Western State Terrorism, edited by Alex George (Routledge, 1991), which runs through lots and lots of cases. These are things people need to know if they want to understand anything about themselves. They are known by the victims, of course, but the perpetrators prefer to look elsewhere.

See http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200111--02.htm

I've spent three months of this year in Thailand and shall shortly return- rather more time, in fact, than I 've been in Palestine this year. Perhaps next year will be different.
In Thailand, I travel freely, have intimate relations with a Thai, see no Thai children being abused by soldiers, no demolished houses and am never held up by checkpoints and armed soldiers. In brief, Thailand is not under a brutal military foreign occupation though I can assure you that there are many, many aspects of its political and social life that grieve me. That's what comes from being an old-fashioned social democrat.
Of course, I have spent a lot of time in both Thailand and Palestine while Homintern has experience of only one of them. Other contributors are free to judge who speaks with greater authority.

[dave_tf-old]

Nelson: I'm really impressed with your knowledge of the Israel/Palestine issue. I'm amazed that you've been able to witness these things close up. Wish you'd write more. We could all benefit from your experiences.

Dboy

Yes, Please. And tell us the story about the brave and Handsome suicide bomber who strapped explosives to his chest to kill the evil, two-headed Zionist Spawn-Children riding the Bus of The Oppressor. I particularly like that one.

I have spent a lot of time in both Thailand and Palestine while Homintern has experience of only one of themAnd your evidence for this brave statement is ... ?

[Aunty]

I have spent a lot of time in both Thailand and Palestine while Homintern has experience of only one of themAnd your evidence for this brave statement is ... ?

Given the paucity of evidence that accompanies your ignorant and bigoted statements, I find it outrageous, but predictably self-serving, that you would demand it from others. We demand reasonable discussions around here, not your hate. My advice to Nelson is, don't feed the troll.

[Dboy]

I've spent three months of this year in Thailand and shall shortly return- rather more time, in fact, than I 've been in Palestine this year. Perhaps next year will be different.
In Thailand, I travel freely, have intimate relations with a Thai, see no Thai children being abused by soldiers, no demolished houses and am never held up by checkpoints and armed soldiers. In brief, Thailand is not under a brutal military foreign occupation though I can assure you that there are many, many aspects of its political and social life that grieve me. That's what comes from being an old-fashioned social democrat.
Of course, I have spent a lot of time in both Thailand and Palestine while Homintern has experience of only one of them. Other contributors are free to judge who speaks with greater authority.

Agreed. You going to be in Thailand around new years? Would be nice to drink a few beers w/ you.

Dboy

-----
Meet me at the Nook on New Years Eve! BYOB (bring your own boyfriend)

... Rose Garden news conference held by Bush yesterday. I actually, for the fist time, thought he came over as an intelligent and insightful speaker, handling questions well if a little dismissively and I could actually see why some Americans (most of those who voted) voted for him. However, that was the 'show' and when you examine what he actually said it is quite frightening. He wants to basically redefine parts of the Geneva Convention (the bits that govern detainee torture, violence and degrading treatment). He also wants to reinstate military courts for detainees and stop them looking at or questioning some of the evidence against them. It all seems far too reminiscent of events in the last century.

First they came for the Communists, and I didnтАЩt speak up, because I wasnтАЩt a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didnтАЩt speak up, because I wasnтАЩt a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didnтАЩt speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

This variation of the poem that was inspired by the rise of the Nazi's (Martin Niem├╢ller)

Also interesting is the fact that when asked 'Would you be in favour of other countries reinterpretting the Geneva Convention?' he simply dodged the question.