Dear cj, What is "terrorism"? My American Heritage dictionary defines it as: "The systematic use of terror, violence, and intimidation to achieve an end." "Terror", in turn, includes these definitions: "Intense, overpowering fear. Violence promoted by a group to achieve or maintain supremacy." I suggest an additional definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation, as part of a struggle, where the victims of the violence are not party to the struggle." After all, it is the fact that the victims in Omagh had nothing to do with the struggle between the "New IRA" and the British Government that we find especially appalling, and that the Kenyan victims in Nairobi had nothing to do with any complaints about the US. It is the _randomness of such acts which make them stand out as _terrorist acts, and it is noteworthy how much emphasis the media gave to the fact that most of the vicitims in Kenya weren't part of the embassy. Especially galling is "state terrorism", where a government officially endorses or supports terrorist acts. Bad enough that deranged individuals or hate-groups might bomb civilians, but even worse when a government is responsible. That amounts to the _institutionalization of terrorism, and deserves our special repugnance. --- Let's consider some of the actions of the US, in regard to our definitions of terrorism. The headline in today's "Observer" proclaims: "CLINTON KNEW TARGET WAS CIVILIAN". Reconaissance flights had shown the Sudanese chemical plant was not involved with weapons, a fact that was also known to Westerners who had recently been to the plant. The "reprisal" then was itself terrorism -- a random act of violence against uninvolved civilians, and it is state terrorism, carried out publicly by the United States. Or consider the Iraq embargo, with the "end", evidently, of removing Saddam from power, but which is carried out forcefully against the whole civilian population of Iraq, primarily by the US. Millions have died, many of them children, in this massive act of intimidation. This too, is state terrorism, although it will never be called that in the media. One can hardly imagine the terror of living through 40,000 American sorties during Desert Storm, with everything from cruise-missiles to B52 carpet bombing to fuel-air explosions. With Iraqi forces pinned down in their bunkers, the US simply destroyed the entire nation. The US could have forced surrender at any time, and when they ran out of targets they finished the actual "war" in a matter of days. So in fact most of the "Storm" was simply "terror, violence, and intimidation" against the Iraqi people -- again a case of US state terrorism. And then there were the Contras, US-trained mercenaries who targetted schools and clinics in order to terrorize the Nicaraguans into voting for a US-approved government. More US state terrorism. Of our definitions above, the one that seems most fitting for the biggest terrorist of them all, the US government, is the following: "Violence promoted by a group to achieve or maintain supremacy." It seems that terrorism is the weapon of those who are very _weak militarily, and of those who are very _strong militarily. The very weak have no armies, so they plant bombs secretly. The very strong don't want to incur politically embarrassing casualties on their side, so they revert to hi-tech terrorism from the skies. In evalutating current events, one must always keep in mind the over-arching project of recent decades: corporate globalization -- the construction of the corporate global regime. This is a fast-track project; it dominates the agendas of most countries; globalization proceeds at a frightening pace. When trying to understand the meaning behind news events, it is a good idea to always ask the question: "How does this event advance the globalization project?" Hi-tech, development-intensive warfare is the strategy our globalist masters have selected to maintain central control over the "Clash of Civilizations" world system they are imposing on us. Instead of requiring patriotic armies, it requires lots of development expenditures for the military-industrial complex. It is technology vs. people; corporate products vs. national populations. It epitomizes corporate domination. And never forget that nukes are in the arsenal, in fact they're getting everyday closer to routine tactical deployemnt, "just in case". Hi-tech warfare happens quick; it doesn't look like "warfare"; it can be sold to the public as a "response". It is flexible: it can be used to "take out" individuals (attempted in Libya, succeeded in Chechenya); it can be used to swing the course of battles (Bosnia); it can be used to punish nations who don't play their assigned role in the world system (Panama, Iraq). In fact, the US has done a great deal to enourage anti-Western terrorism, to get the ball rolling in this game. It's the US that armed and funded the Afghans who have later become international terrorists, and the US that supplied arms secretly to Iran (while they were holding hostages), and the US FBI who had agents in the group that bombed the World Trade Center. One can assume conspiracy-theorists have exaggerated their claims in the Oklahoma bombing case, but nonetheless there is adquate persuasive evidence that the public story regarding the Oklahoma bombing is bogus. Terrorist-act - terrorist-response is the formula the US favors, and it is the formula the US has been doing everything it can to implement in practice ever since they lost the Cold War excuse for interventionism and domestic suppression. Don't be misled by the media circus around Clinton. Clinton has not the power to order military actions over the objections of his military advisors. There are _so many potential "leaks" that could put the final nail in his poltical coffin -- he's a wounded rabbit and he does what he's told. Yes, he counts his lucky stars that he can appear noble on TV, with tears on command, but that's his luck, not his design. As our next two posts, I'll be sending out a couple pieces regarding the embassy bombings and response by Parveez Syed, a journalist of Egyptian descent who lives in London and who evidently has confidential sources in various Western intelligence agencies, including those of Israel. I don't agree with everything he says, and as you will see he becomes rather passionate and perhaps even one-sided in his arguments. Nonetheless there has generally proved to be substance behind his reports, and I think a strong alternative view is healthy in the face of the one-sided coverage the mass media gives us. keep awake, rkm http://cyberjournal.org btw> An offical CDR "INVITATION to Help Achieve a Livable World" is now on our website, along with a draft chapter two of the globalization book. These will be posted after this series on terrorism.