cj#532> Who is the real terrorist?


Richard Moore

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996
Sender: Parveez Syed <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Who is the real terrorist?

Monday 22 April 1996, London-UK

From: Parveez Syed
Global Media Monitoring Unit
Shanti Communications
One Stuart Road, Thornton Heath, Surrey CR7 8RA1 UK
Tel: London-UK 44-0831-196693
Fax: 44-0181-665 0384
E-Mail INTERNET: •••@••.•••

Who is the real terrorist?
by Sabah Al-Mukhtar (c) Shanti RTV

Intellectuals form the south and third world countries are
preoccupied with "terrorism". The reason being that politicians
of the north repeatedly accuse many people of the south of being
"terrorists", who need to be dealt with. For example Claues
(ex-secretary general of NATO) wanted to stem the terrorism of
Islam by coordinating the work of governments such as that of
Egypt, Tunis, Morocco and Algeria. Michael Portillo (British
Secretary of Defence) supports the view that Hizbullah (which is
trying to liberate its country from Israeli occupation) is a
"terrorist organisation", but Israel which murders civilians and
patients in ambulances is not. The list of terrorists is long
according to Western definition of terrorism. Jomo Kenyata,
Nelson Mandela, Yassir Arafat (until recently) Archbishop
Makarios are all terrorist including Manachim Began.

So what is terrorism?  Alex Schmid in his book "political
Terrorism" cites 109 definitions!! How could that be? If one
remembers that Her Majesty the Queen Mother, few weeks ago laid
a wreath in remembrance of those who "fallen behind enemy
lines". This in fact was a reference to British and German war
heros who for king and country, in order destablise Nazi Germany
and Hitler's regime planted bombs in buses, blew up bridges,
killed and maimed civilians and assassinated collaborators. The
answer to the question of whether those were freedom fighters or
terrorists?  presumably depends on which side of the fence one
was standing and who is on the receiving end.

Since I am a lawyer and not a politician I wish to examine with
you the case we are meeting tonight (Tuesday 16 April 1996) to
remember and possibly to determine, who is the real terrorist.

The facts

*  President Ronald Reagan claimed in April 1986 that he had
   "conclusive evidence" that "the Praia state and the mad dog of
   the Middle East Gaddafi caused the bombing of la belle
   nightclub in Germany.

*  15th April 1996 the US ordered its bombers to fly from Britain
   to bomb Tripoli and Benghazi.

*  21st April 1986 the Chief of security police of Germany
   formally announced that they have "no concrete evidence" of
   the involvement of Libya.

*  25th April 1986 the suspected Arab who was in detention in
   Germany was released without being charged with terrorism.

Many still remember how Kate Aidea (BBC's reporter in Tripoli)
was savaged by the Conservative Party because, they said, was
"giving comfort to the terrorist by giving biased reports".

Basic legal principles

In order that the above facts may be examined rationally, they
need to be objectively tested in accordance with the following
legal principles that are universally agreed to see if they

1:  Terrorism is an abhorrent crime that is condemned by all in
    the strongest terms as an inhumane act  directed at the
    innocent be it committed by one person, a group or a STATE..
    It does not matter who commit it.

2:  Terrorism committed by a state is the worst kind. It involves
    not just individual but a whole  government which makes it a
    more hyaenas crime.

3:  Right of self defence is supreme.

4:  Self defence must always be proportionate.

5:  Penalty is personal.  It should be applied to the criminal
    alone and cannot be extended to innocent  people such as his
    children. Punishment should fit the crime.

6:  No penalty shall be imposed without conclusive evidence.

When the facts of this case are tested on these principles it is
clear that the action of the United States of America and Britain
was based on no evidence whatsoever.

The penalty was meted out to wholly innocent people. Some were
not even accused by the US, such as Gaddafi's own children, the
French Embassy, the multitude of civilians who were killed.
Others were at most suspects whose culpability was never proven.

The self defence argument and reliance on article 51 of the UN
Charter which was tried at the time was wholly inappropriate nor
was it relevant. The Nightclub was German, the crime committed
in Germany the victims were Germans (although some were
Americans) and the terrorist was never caught, identified or
proven to be a Libyan.

The bombing raids thereafter, even on the assumption that there
was a right of self defence, was totally disproportionate to the
act complained of. It was a reprisal and not a defence. It was
indiscriminate just like all terrorist acts are with devastating
effect for the civilian population.

On this occasion I remember the Arabic proverb which may be
translated as follows: "the killing of a man in a jungle is a
crime, but the killing of a nation is a doubtful claim".

No one understands the suffering of those who have lost dear ones
and are still grieving under blockade than the people of Iraq. I
am one of them of Iraq and I share with the people of Libya the
indignation and anger. I salute the people of Libya on this tenth
anniversary of the terrorist US bombing of Tripoli.

Presented by: Shanti RTV (c) 22 April 1996.

Food for thought?: "In politics, as in the snake oil business, it
pays to have a short memory and a chameleon-like quality. That is
why the relationship between a journalist and a politician should
be like the one between a dog and a lamp-post".
But who is doing what to whom? One wonders ;-)

    Posted by Richard K. Moore  -  •••@••.•••  -  Wexford, Ireland
     Cyberlib:  www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib