"Calibrated? Sorry. Government reaction is in the form of
asymmetrical threat and delivery of disproportionate force,
whenever it exacts a penalty. That is the model presented for
emulation."
Oh. Perhaps I misunderstood your initial reaction to the word "terrorism". If you meant to say that "Governments are unable to perform acts of terrorism precisely because terrorism by definition is the means by which to fight a power (ie, a government) engaged in the disproportionate use of force", then I clearly misunderstood you.
-TD
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tyler Durden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: State-sponsored terrorism (Chomsky)
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 06:30:04 +0100 (CET)
On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:12:23 -0500, you wrote:
>
> Norman Nescio wrote...
>
> "Yes they are. By definition, intimidation and violence by
> governments is not terrorism. The fact that the recipient is
> feeling "terror" is irrelevant. Take back the language."
>
> By what definition? State-sponsored terrorism as well as plain old state-terrorism has been covered extensively by Chomsky and many others. Check out the nifty little zinger,
>
> http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2064
>
> Here's a little taste:
>
> "There could hardly be a clearer example of international terrorism as defined officially, or in scholarship: operations aimed at "demonstrating through apparently indiscriminate violence that the existing regime cannot protect the people nominally under its authority," thus causing not only "anxiety, but withdrawal from the relationships making up the established order of society."[10] State terror elsewhere in Central America in those years also counts as international terrorism, in the light of the decisive US role, and the goals, sometimes frankly articulated; for example, by the Army's School of the Americas, which trains Latin American military officers and takes pride in the fact that "Liberation Theology...was defeated with the assistance of the U.S. Army."[11]
>
> It would seem to follow, clearly enough, that only those who support bombing of Washington in response to these international terrorist crimes -- that is, no one -- can accept the "reciprocally absolute doctrine" on response to terrorist atrocities or consider massive bombardment to be an appropriate and properly "calibrated" response to them."
Calibrated? Sorry. Government reaction is in the form of
asymmetrical threat and delivery of disproportionate force,
whenever it exacts a penalty. That is the model presented for
emulation.
What goes around...
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
