On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 04:21:03PM -0700, Russ Johnson wrote: > The State Department defines terrorism as "premeditated, politically > motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by > subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence > an audience." > > In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former > deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are > four key elements of terrorism: > > 1. It is premeditatedâplanned in advance, rather than an impulsive > act of rage. > 2. It is politicalânot criminal, like the violence that groups such > as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing > political order. > 3. It is aimed at civiliansânot at military targets or combat-ready > troops. > 4. It is carried out by subnational groupsânot by the army of a country. > > So... by this definition, the US Army can't commit acts of terrorism.
The interesting thing about both of these definitions is the word subnational. If an action is taken by a government or under their auspices, these definitions do not apply. The United States regarded the Taliban as a terrorist organization, even though they were the recognized government of Afghanistan. Either the definitions of terrorism are inadiquate or the United States' actions in Afghanistan (and Iraq, though Afghanistan is somewhat less incindiary to discuss) constitute war against and invasion/occupation of a soverign nation, followed by the creation of a government to our liking. Which of the above is deemed true probably depends on your political party affiliation. As a proud independent, I am not bound by party loyalty and can say honestly that both are completely true--failure include scope beyond subnational entities is a flaw in the definition of terrorism AND the United States did invade and seize power in a soverign nation. Without getting into a discussion about these matters, because I don't think we can have a reasonable discussion about them, it's reasonable to say that the things which most warrant consideration are often not considered. Regardless of justifications, one should consider the pure factual objective (eg, to depose the Taliban and capture al Qaeda), the intended consequence (threat elimination, show of force), the forseeable positive and negative consequences, and how the powers that be react to the inevitable unforseen consequences. The justifications, attitudes, speeches, etc are just posturing and aren't worth the time it takes to consider them, IMO. I've found this sort of thinking the only way to survive in a climate where candidates on both sides are trying to scare you into voting for them in addition to some of the greatest displays of political silliness I have ever seen. (eg, Edwards' claim that a vote for Kerry will make the blind see, the lame walk, etc. It's not like this is the second coming or so, even if both parties portray eachother as tools of the antichrist..) _______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
