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.
Share: