Brett:
I am not going to get into this debate.
After all, you and others will write:
"John, some very terrible and awful things have been done in the name of
the United States in the past."
And I will respond:
"Yes, in the past the United States has made some very terrible decisions
and mistakes while trying to do what we thought was best for the world. In
so doing, the United States came perilously close to participating in the
very sort of evilness we were trying so desperately to fight. Yet, as bad
and as wrong as these things were, they did not constitute active
state-sponsored terrorism."
And you, or someone else will respond:
"But what about <insert various ignoble actions of the United States here>,
weren't these terrorist acts sponsored by the United States?"
And just like that, pretty soon we will both start feeling very bitter at
each other.
>From UNDCP.org, the following was listed as the academic consensus
definition of terrorism:
"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action,
employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for
idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to
assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets.
The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly
(targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic
targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat-
and violence-based communication processes between terrorist
(organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to
manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of
terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether
intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought"
http://www.undcp.org/terrorism_definitions.html
I would argue that most, if not all, of the actions that you would cite do
not meet the above definition.
More importantly, however, any actions which do meet the above definition
were certainly *not* state-sponsored. To be state-sponsored an act must
consciously and deliberately either carried out on behalf of, or supported
by, a government. In the case of the United States, whenever any actions
that have come close to meeting the above defintion, and were carried out
in our name, have been brough to our attention, the United States, its
people and government have universally reacted with revulsion. We have
never supported the kililng of random innocent civilians in order to spread
fear and terror among an entire populus of innocent civilians.
This reaction of the United States stands in stark contrast to the reaction
of Afghanistan and Iraq, whom at bare minimum, have publicly supported the
vicious acts of terrorism carried out on September 11th. Moreover, it is
almost certain that both governments plan to aid and abet those people who
did this in their attempts to do this again.
The difference between the United States and Iraq and Afghanistan in
regards to terrorism is so stark and clear, I know that it is not arguable.
So, I will accept this point of agreement that Iraq and Afghanistan have
plunged to a new low in terms of state-sponsored terrorism - and leave the
examination of how much support the United States actually gave to every
brutal act carried out in its name to another time and another place.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"Freedom itself was attacked today, and Freedom will be Defended."
-U.S. President George W. Bush, 09/11/01
