Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Uniform definitions

Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
by a person or an organized group against people or

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized
group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing
societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Or alternatively:

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror or violence to achieve
political goals. The targets of terrorism include government officials, identified
individuals or groups, and innocent bystanders. In most cases terrorists seek
to overthrow or destabilize an existing political regime, but totalitarian and
dictatorial governments use terror to

maintain their power.

A terrorist is obviously one who engages in terrorism.

Now, on the surface of it, those definitions can also apply to what we term
as offensive or defensive military actions. But there is a tendency to see terrorists
as non-uniformed.

So let’s add non-uniformed to those definitions just to be clear.

The state of Israel was created by proud Zionist terrorist. No one debates
that, nor that the USA was born out of terrorist activities. But they have since
become relatively powerful, and now wear uniforms, so they are now legitimate
military states.

Terrorists also attack innocent civilians, as part of their intimidation efforts.
Israel attack innocent civilians, but they wear uniforms while they do it. A
bit of a grey area there.

British troops in Afghanistan have engaged in killing innocent civilians as
they root out Taliban (terrorists). Some British troops have also been advised
to dress ‘like the local’ to try and win their confidence. Killing
innocent civilians, out of uniform? Is that a grey area?

Don’t talk to terrorists

Both the USA and Israel claim that they refuse to talk to terrorists.

First we might need to subdivide the terrorist definition. For example we hear
of Islamist terrorists.

Are all terrorists Muslims? No, by definition, terrorists can hold any religious
affiliation or even no religious affiliation.

Are all Muslims terrorists by virtue of their religious beliefs? See above.

Are some types (on religious grounds for example) better, worse or the same
as any other breed of terrorist? Again, by definition affiliation should not
make any difference.

Key legitimate military states, like the USA, state they will not negotiate
or have dealings with any terrorist group.

How does that square with the current support for non-uniformed, Islamist warlords
in Sudan? They fit the definition of terrorists.

US Congress supports terrorists

The US Congress has recently refused to ratify their side of a no-contest extradition
treaty with Britain. The clear reason for the refusal is that Britain might
call for the extradition of known IRA operatives currently in the US.

By all standards the IRA rate as terrorists, yet they have the support of the
United States Congress. Religious affiliation should make no difference, so
being predominantly Roman Catholic should not protect the IRA members.

US Policy supports terrorist havens

Lebanon’s civilian attacks are explained away because the Lebanese government
failed to deal with Hezbollah fighters on their territory.

So by definition, if a government harbours terrorists, willingly or not, that
country and its hapless civilians are a fair target for legitimate military

Tamil fighters (terrorists) in Sri Lanka regularly use Southern India for their

Yet President Bush recently completed a pact with India to allow them to develop
a nuclear capacity.

Pakistan is a regular haven for Afghan Taliban fighters and other terrorists.
But rather than punish innocent Pakistanis, the US goes to great lengths to
maintain strong relations with that government.

So far the only uniform definition I have found is that legitimate, uniformed
military states can justify just about any action they choose to take. They
can attack or condone terrorism as they please. But it would be folly, unless
you are uniformed, to question

their right to do so.

I am open to more clarification here. Because it seems to me that there is
a significant gap, at times, between stated policies and real actions. It could
simply be that legitimate military states know better than we ordinary people.
It might be, but I’m yet to see any evidence of that assertion. More likely
it is a matter of playing both ends against the middle and the people are totally

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Oh, my god. On THIS one, you're sounding just like al-qaida.

You are a terrorist supporting fag. That's my conclusions about you.