Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
>
What is Terrorism and Who gets to define the term?
Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan by International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) and Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law) looks like a good read on this subject.Here's the book's synopsis:
In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling “targeted killing” of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts.
This narrative is false.
Following nine months of intensive research—including two investigations in Pakistan, more than 130 interviews with victims, witnesses, and experts, and review of thousands of pages of documentation and media reporting—this report presents evidence of the damaging and counterproductive effects of current US drone strike policies. Based on extensive interviews with Pakistanis living in the regions directly affected, as well as humanitarian and medical workers, this report provides new and firsthand testimony about the negative impacts US policies are having on the civilians living under drones.
Real threats to US security and to Pakistani civilians exist in the Pakistani border areas now targeted by drones. It is crucial that the US be able to protect itself from terrorist threats, and that the great harm caused by terrorists to Pakistani civilians be addressed. However, in light of significant evidence of harmful impacts to Pakistani civilians and to US interests, current policies to address terrorism through targeted killings and drone strikes must be carefully re-evaluated.
It is essential that public debate about US policies take the negative effects of current policies into account.
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is significant evidence that US drone strikes have injured and killed civilians. In public statements, the US states that there have been “no” or “single digit” civilian casualties.” It is difficult to obtain data on strike casualties because of US efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability, compounded by the obstacles to independent investigation of strikes in North Waziristan. The best currently available public aggregate data on drone strikes are provided by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), an independent journalist organization. TBIJ reports that from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children. TBIJ reports that these strikes also injured an additional 1,228-1,362 individuals. Where media accounts do report civilian casualties, rarely is any information provided about the victims or the communities they leave behind. This report includes the harrowing narratives of many survivors, witnesses, and family members who provided evidence of civilian injuries and deaths in drone strikes to our research team. It also presents detailed accounts of three separate strikes, for which there is evidence of civilian deaths and injuries, including a March 2011 strike on a meeting of tribal elders that killed some 40 individuals.
Second, US drone strike policies cause considerable and under-accounted-for harm to the daily lives of ordinary civilians, beyond death and physical injury. Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women, and children, giving rise to anxiety and psychological trauma among civilian communities. Those living under drones have to face the constant worry that a deadly strike may be fired at any moment, and the knowledge that they are powerless to protect themselves. These fears have affected behavior. The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims. Some community members shy away from gathering in groups, including important tribal dispute-resolution bodies, out of fear that they may attract the attention of drone operators. Some parents choose to keep their children home, and children injured or traumatized by strikes have dropped out of school. Waziris told our researchers that the strikes have undermined cultural and religious practices related to burial, and made family members afraid to attend funerals. In addition, families who lost loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.
Third, publicly available evidence that the strikes have made the US safer overall is ambiguous at best. The strikes have certainly killed alleged combatants and disrupted armed actor networks. However, serious concerns about the efficacy and counter-productive nature of drone strikes have been raised. The number of “high-level” targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low—estimated at just 2%. Furthermore, evidence suggests that US strikes have facilitated recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivated further violent attacks. As the New York Times has reported, “drones have replaced Guantánamo as the recruiting tool of choice for militants.” Drone strikes have also soured many Pakistanis on cooperation with the US and undermined US-Pakistani relations. One major study shows that 74% of Pakistanis now consider the US an enemy.
Fourth, current US targeted killings and drone strike practices undermine respect for the rule of law and international legal protections and may set dangerous precedents. This report casts doubt on the legality of strikes on individuals or groups not linked to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and who do not pose imminent threats to the US. The US government’s failure to ensure basic transparency and accountability in its targeted killing policies, to provide necessary details about its targeted killing program, or adequately to set out the legal factors involved in decisions to strike hinders necessary democratic debate about a key aspect of US foreign and national security policy. US practices may also facilitate recourse to lethal force around the globe by establishing dangerous precedents for other governments. As drone manufacturers and officials successfully reduce export control barriers, and as more countries develop lethal drone technologies, these risks increase.
In light of these concerns, this report recommends that the US conduct a fundamental re-evaluation of current targeted killing practices, taking into account all available evidence, the concerns of various stakeholders, and the short and long-term costs and benefits. A significant rethinking of current US targeted killing and drone strike policies is long overdue. US policy-makers, and the American public, cannot continue to ignore evidence of the civilian harm and counter-productive impacts of US targeted killings and drone strikes in Pakistan.
This report also supports and reiterates the calls consistently made by rights groups and others for legality, accountability, and transparency in US drone strike policies:
• The US should fulfill its international obligations with respect to accountability and transparency, and ensure proper democratic debate about key policies. The US should:
o Release the US Department of Justice memoranda outlining the legal basis for US targeted killing in Pakistan;
o Make public critical information concerning US drone strike policies, including as previously and repeatedly requested by various groups and officials: the targeting criteria for so-called “signature” strikes; the mechanisms in place to ensure that targeting complies with international law; which laws are being applied; the nature of investigations into civilian death and injury; and mechanisms in place to track, analyze and publicly recognize civilian casualties;
o Ensure independent investigations into drone strike deaths, consistent with the call made by Ben Emmerson, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism in August 2012;
o In conjunction with robust investigations and, where appropriate, prosecutions, establish compensation programs for civilians harmed by US strikes in Pakistan.
• The US should fulfill its international humanitarian and human rights law obligations with respect to the use of force, including by not using lethal force against individuals who are not members of armed groups with whom the US is in an armed conflict, or otherwise against individuals not posing an imminent threat to life. This includes not double-striking targets as first responders arrive.
o Journalists and media outlets should cease the common practice of referring simply to “militant” deaths, without further explanation. All reporting of government accounts of “militant” deaths should include acknowledgment that the US government counts all adult males killed by strikes as “militants,” absent exonerating evidence. Media accounts relying on anonymous government sources should also highlight the fact of their single-source information and of the past record of false government reports.
Regarding the book above, I think it's encouraging that US lawyers and renowned American law schools are now investigating this subject.I'm certain history books of the future will reveal the truth and acknowledge the actual death tolls of innocent civilians in the colossal human rights violation that is "the war on terror"...
James Morcan wrote: "Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan by [author:International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law Sc..."Excellent post James.
Terrorism is the art of inflicting terror to achieve an objective!!
Living under the threat of a drone attack is TERROR.
The threat of enhanced interrogation, torture by its proper name, is terror.
The threat of execution is terror,
The main exponents of terror ARE government agencies!
In practice, the term terrorism is only applied to non-governmental entities. Sometimes to governments the west doesn't like.Robert Anton Wilson said terrorism is poor people doing their own killing. Rich people have governments to do their killing for them.
Savvy observation, Jim.
Something from what I'm currently reading--"We don't understand the definition of terrorism. Those who are fighting with small rifles are terrorists and those who are dropping bombs are not."
Sash wrote: "Something from what I'm currently reading--"We don't understand the definition of terrorism. Those who are fighting with small rifles are terrorists and those who are dropping bombs are not.""Correct!!!
What also cannot be ignored in any "reported" terrorism is that some of it, maybe even most of it, is being fabricated by Western powers. The idea of crisis actors in staged terrorist events has been something that's pretty much been consigned to conspiracy theories until now. However, just this month fabricated terrorism and the use of crisis actors has now reached mainstream media debate...
BBC Crisis Actors Hoax Chemical Warfare in Syria -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9497...
As we know War = Profits.The West's doing pretty well from fighting ISIS...
From today's International Business Times:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/battle-defe...
Harry wrote: "As we know War = Profits.The West's doing pretty well from fighting ISIS...
From today's International Business Times:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/battle-defe......"
Pretty sad that the BBC would resort to using crisis actors...the BBC has now lost all credibility...especially as they reported the fall of Building 7 on 9/11 about a half an hour before it actually fell (and still haven't properly explained that one).
Is it time to rename the mainstream media the "War Media"??????
Seems like the big news outlets are all now run by the military industrial complex and intel agencies, with confirmations now coming thick and fast that there are numerous CIA-run branches operating within the likes of CNN and MSNBC...
Should somebody set up an equivalent organization to the Academy Awards where they hand out Oscars to the best Crisis Actors in staged terrorism "news coverage"? :)
James Morcan wrote: "Should somebody set up an equivalent organization to the Academy Awards where they hand out Oscars to the best Crisis Actors in staged terrorism "news coverage"? :)"You should set it up.
I look forward to voting on the Propaganda Oscars.
Harry wrote: "You should set it up.I look forward to voting on the Propaganda Oscars. ..."
And besides actors...what about directors and producer Oscars?
And the best producer nominees are...(insert current directors of the CIA, NSA, MI6, etc)
And the best writer nominees are...(insert the spooks who operate on Goodreads...e.g. the ones who create profiles with odd profile pics then mysterious disappear!!)
Yes, I concur the awards should be as broad as possible to take into account a wide variety of bullshit skills.Fake account spooks on GR? Surely not.................
Harry wrote: "Yes, I concur the awards should be as broad as possible to take into account a wide variety of bullshit skills....."
Well, what about best make-up and best wardrobe?
I mean did you see the symmetrically-torn clothes and lousy make-up with those crisis actors in that hospital in Syria?
Yep. And Best Voiceover for replacing the word napalm in a BBC report.Gotta give credit to Syrian set designers too.
Harry wrote: "Yep. And Best Voiceover for replacing the word napalm in a BBC report.Gotta give credit to Syrian set designers too."
You ever see that movie WAG THE DOG with De Niro and Dustin Hoffman?
Strange how prophetic that movie is turning out to be with its use of crisis actors and fabricating entire acts of war to galvanize the gullible public into supporting new wars against foreign nations...
Harry wrote: "Yep. And Best Voiceover for replacing the word napalm in a BBC report.Gotta give credit to Syrian set designers too."
Well, maybe they brought in Iraqi set designers...I suspect they may have more experience in such propaganda videos ;)
Still not seen WAG THE DOG.Trump's gotta win the Most Bollocks Publicly Stated Award.
Harry wrote: "Still not seen WAG THE DOG.Trump's gotta win the Most Bollocks Publicly Stated Award."
Damn, mate, you've gotta see Wag the Dog. In hindsight, maybe the global elite financed that movie to laugh at us all...and put the truth right under our noses in a Hollywood comedy...
Check out the trailer:
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9497...
Put Wag The Dog together with the fabulous film Dogtooth (which ain't political, but a great view on how our perception is what we learn) and we might have a good example of how the world really is.Woof!
Sash wrote: "James Morcan wrote: "Call me stupid, but I'm confused by mainstream meida reports coming out of Syria like this one:'US-backed Kurdish-Arab alliance launches first anti-Islamic State attack in Sy..."
Very good post Sash,
Check out this post here 'The (spoils of) the War on Terror' in the Bankrupting the Third World section: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
A concerned American citizen and mom fights for the rights of her fellow citizens (rights that were taken away because of the War on Terror) -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/9716...Note the NDAA law is referred to in this emotional speech...The NDAA allows the US Federal government to remove ANY dissenter from the home and jail them without the ability to defend themselves...And that is in direct violation of the US Constitution.
Some would argue such laws are a form of terrorism...
"John wrote: "Terrorism or US assistance for governments in the Latin/South America's???https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati..."
John wrote: "Terrorism or US assistance for governments in the Latin/South America's???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operati..."
From the link you gave: "Due to its clandestine nature, the precise number of deaths directly attributable to Operation Condor is highly disputed. Some estimates are that at least 60,000 deaths can be attributed to Condor,[4][5] and possibly more.[6] Victims included dissidents and leftists, union and peasant leaders, priests and nuns, students and teachers, intellectuals and suspected guerillas."..."
Operation Condor is mentioned in this video that provides a short history of the CIA's lovely and heartwarming and humanitarian save-the-world activities :)
https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1000...
p.s. Good on US journalist Abby Martin for refusing to respect the rules of journalism and instead deciding to flavor news reports with her strong opinions about the criminal history of the CIA. (She eventually did the same thing when she walked out of hosting the Russia Today network show and refused to be a puppet for Putin or the Kremlin).
A man becomes a terrorist when he finds his meaning in life based in the destruction of his fellow humans. Well, at least that's how I define it. The political view of terrorism has somehow come to be associated with Islam - thanks to Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and USA's intervention. So, yeah, that's what terrorism is and that's what terrorism is - in both de dicto and de re intentions.
Islamic extremist attack at gay dance club, "worst mass shooting in US history":http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Ronald wrote: "Islamic extremist attack at gay dance club, "worst mass shooting in US history":http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic......"
Such a sad and terrible act. But it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Islamic extremists - at this stage.
The gunman's dad says his son was homophobic but it had nothing to do with religion.
But, of course, the FBI say "(He) MAY have 'leanings to radical Islamic terrorism'.
It definitely has to do with ISIS extremists.The gunman pledged his allegiance to ISIS!
When the story broke out, everybody in America thought maybe two things...
1. Another Islamic Extremist Terrorist Attack
2. A homophobic Terrorist Christian who attacked a ton of homosexuals because well, they just hated 'em
*sigh* Of course it was ISIS.
My heart goes out to all affected by this horrible act of violence.
I also read the guy was a wife beater and had a Semper Fi sticker on his car. I'm more inclined to think he was a violently disturbed individual. ISIS doesn't seem to have any real bearing on his actions any more than the USMC.I think the ISIS angle is a distraction. The main problem is that some people are murderous fuckheads.
'The agent at Sunday afternoon’s press briefing also confirmed reports that the shooter called 911 before the massacre, and said his remarks had general connections to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terror group. The content of those calls is now federal evidence.'http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06...
Jim wrote: "I think the ISIS angle is a distraction. The main problem is that some people are murderous fuckheads. ..."
Bingo.
Jim wrote: "I think the ISIS angle is a distraction. The main problem is that some people are murderous fuckheads...."And unfortunately some of the biggest "murderous fuckheads" are in the Military Industrial Complex who obviously profit off of (and often secretly finance) extremist groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc.
Is the Islamic State (IS/ISIS) another invention of the West? https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Sigh. I should have knows better than to join a group with nutters who think the moon landing was faked, 9-11 was a false flag, and that people are abducted by space aliens. Bye.
Ronald wrote: "Sigh. I should have knows better than to join a group with nutters who think the moon landing was faked, 9-11 was a false flag, and that people are abducted by space aliens. Bye."Ah, the old tactic of implying anyone who challenges anything that comes from the Establishment's mainstream media is a paranoid, delusional tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy nutcase into the most outlandish and unproven ideas.
I'll leave the rest to the man who has probably been responsible for proving the most conspiracy theories as fact in the modern era:
"There are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It's important not to confuse these two." -Julian Assange
Jim wrote: "I think the ISIS angle is a distraction. The main problem is that some people are murderous fuckheads.."Absolutely!
Talha wrote: "It's really appalling to see some hoaxes hammering our brains regularly, but real barbarism is concealed: Just three days ago, Assad's airforce dropped 59 barrel bombs on Darya and virtually noone ..."Yep.
Why Is the Killer of British MP Jo Cox Not Being Called a “Terrorist”? -- https://theintercept.com/2016/06/17/w...Where are all the headlines reading “WHITE BRITISH CHRISTIAN TERRORIST”? -- https://www.goodreads.com/author_blog...
If not all, at least some murderous fuckheads need a higher truth to take the next step. Sometimes it’s religion (or a sect’s interpretation thereof), sometimes it’s nationalism.
Alex wrote: "If not all, at least some murderous fuckheads need a higher truth to take the next step. Sometimes it’s religion (or a sect’s interpretation thereof), sometimes it’s nationalism."Fair point, mate.
On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare by Noam Chomsky:
Western State Terrorism
NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe
Did The CIA Commit Acts Of Terrorism? (Operation Gladio partially-declassified) -- https://www.goodreads.com/videos/1086...
The Drone Memos: Targeted Killing, Secrecy, and the Lawhe Drone Memos collects for the first time the legal and policy documents underlying the U.S. government’s deeply controversial practice of “targeted killing”—the extrajudicial killing of suspected terrorists and militants, typically using remotely piloted aircraft or “drones.” The documents—including the Presidential Policy Guidance that provides the framework for drone strikes today, Justice Department white papers addressing the assassination of an American citizen, and a highly classified legal memo that was published only after a landmark legal battle involving the ACLU, the New York Times, and the CIA—together constitute a remarkable effort to legitimize a practice that most human rights experts consider to be unlawful and that the United States has historically condemned.
In a lucid and provocative introduction, Jameel Jaffer, who led the ACLU legal team that secured the release of many of the documents, evaluates the “drone memos” in light of domestic and international law. He connects the documents’ legal abstractions to the real-world violence they allow, and makes the case that we are trading core principles of democracy and human rights for the illusion of security.
Maybe it will look like crap, but I already wanted to workout the kill
James wrote: "The Drone Memos: Targeted Killing, Secrecy, and the Lawhe Drone Memos collects for the first time the legal and policy documents underlying the U.S. government’s deeply controvers..."
He is completely right, what makes you think that the US has the right to kill other militants outside its borders? And killing an American soldier or citizen is forbidden?
Actually the US is killing the world with its Globalization culture, and its insane subliminal programming using the media that it controls over the world.
The US is acting like the God of the earth since the Capitalism has rules the world.
Tha main war here is not that one with arms and weapons. Because this a the "classic war" and is only the last solution the US and its ally takes.
Why should the US always intervenes in the middle east and arabs issues? And even she puts her noise in everything in the whole world?
Is sowing discord to provoke civil wars, and selling arms, then intervening in the internal affairs of countries is legal and allowed?
Is only killing an American is forbidden, and killing arabs and Muslims is allowed, licit and permissible?
Why talking about Muslims only make you angry? Don't you think that you are seeing what they wanted programmed you to see? Because in an objective vision and reality, Islam is something completely different than what you think and what they've showed you actually.
And Muslims today are not representing Islam, because they are not practicing or following the real orders it contains.. Whether because they are seduced by subliminal "NLP", broadcasted over TV's and internet and everywhere, 'cause the American dream has became a reality.. Most of people today are asleep by the somniferous abstract drugs, that the recent world is selling over Medias.
Why before hating somebody, don't you try to understand and discover his truth?
Do you think that Muslims are really bad? Or think that they are all the same? And Have ever see the real image of a real typical Muslim and how are his real attitudes?
For someone who reads and hang out in bookread website, I can't call you a cultivated person, because you miss objectivity in your analysis. You have to really study the object that you criticize keeping your affection by your doctrine and opinion aside, and trying to see what is Islam, and how a typical Muslim looks like and how he does act with other people and in society, and even in his environment and with other existing creatures.
We are blind, we are not free, as long as we are standing behind behind these crappy monitored screens, claiming fake right they teach us to claim, and worshiping the Gods of America with or without consciousness.
Since when the American became the angles of the earth, and killing em is the absolute biggest sin? And killing a Muslim (innocent or "suspected" terrorist) is absolutely allowed and considered as a virtue?
We are all human in the end, "And whom who kills a person unlawfully was like whom who killed all people" -- Verses from Quran
On one level I think you speak a lot of truths, Anon.The 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet are by and large peaceful and most people in the West actually believe the false idea that the vast majority of Muslims are either terrorists or support terrorism. Most have fallen for this idea due to mainstream media (owned and controlled by the same entities controlling the US military) which has deceived the common people into thinking all Muslims are enemies of the West. It's essentially a propaganda war.
However, in my opinion we gotta be careful falling into the trap of recognizing the above truth, but then flipping to the other extreme of thinking all Muslims or even most Muslims are good people. Although much of ISIS and Al-Q has had CIA involvement and is not organic Islamic terrorism, there is definitely still an aggressive, ugly side to Islam (pretty much like all religions have e.g. take a look at the sins of the Catholic church over the centuries). The Quran, like the documents of all religions, is very contradictory and convoluted and there are numerous quotes that I could reply with from the Quran which contradict the quote you've included above about not killing...It's these grey areas in religions that allow some to justify killings and "holy wars" etc in the name of their religion (not just Islam, but all religions).
Also, have to be careful in my opinion saying the problems we have now are simply about "Americans". Americans are pretty much victims in all this as well as these insane wars are slowly but surely wrecking America as well. The US spends trillions annually on its war machine, but Americans have very little social service protections compared to other Western nations and US politicians don't seem to care much about protecting the poorest or most vulnerable Americans. I therefore think we need to differentiate the US Military Industrial Complex (and it's associated 3-letter intel agencies) from the American people - they are not the same thing.
There are some very good Americans and some very evil Americans, there are some very good Muslims and some very evil devout Muslims quoting from the Quran...Just as there are some very good Christians and some very evil Christians quoting from the Bible.
Besides those points, I think all the other questions you raise are valid. The point is the killing of any innocent person anywhere in the world should be viewed as an equal crime. When the West terrorizes nations and invades and drops bombs and uses drone warfare on ordinary citizens, THAT IS TERRORISM!
James wrote: "On one level I think you speak a lot of truths, Anon.The 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet are by and large peaceful and most people in the West actually believe the false idea that the vast major..."
Well, as I told before, you can't judge a fridge without taking a look inside...
The main topic of this page is not about religion, but I'd rather say, that you are wrong again about your opinion about Islam and Quran, even if you have been right all along about you said;
What you think that is contradiction, is your misunderstanding the case.. Islam has never authorized killing innocents, and never came to make raise violence on earth, but all the verses that talks about war and fights, were verses that talks about the past. And outside battlefield and armies, Islam has never allowed killing innocents or mistreat them. Even if in the decades that came after the death of the prophet and his best fellows of Sahabah "some people has tried to make troubles" and alter the real picture of Islam as every time its enemies try to do they has killed innocents in the name of Islam (Which is forbidden in Quran and Sunnah).
Islam never allow killing people for greed or power. And the question here is: What is the real best law we should follow to make the most perfect peace and justice on the earth? The vulnerable human law which made for self benefits, or Religion rules and the perfect wisdom of God?
Clearer, this is a question of faith, and even of the whole world become atheists, man will still be the enemy of his inner self. Because running out from the truth to the "comfort zone" will not help humanity to be better, or more conscious, but more sick and more dumb and more gay and more insane without virtue and high morals which are the reason of rising up huge nations and great civilizations.
If you look at my posts throughout this group, I have defended Muslims again and again - I don't believe for one second Muslims as a whole are the West's enemies or a threat to world peace. Just as I don't believe the Viet Cong were some major enemy that justified starting the Vietnam War (which lead to over 3 million dead).I'm pro religious freedom. I have Muslim friends and have read an English translation of the Quran.
However, personally I think religious people tend to cherry pick from their religious texts. They say Christianity and Islam are "only about love", and I can certainly see the love...However, besides the obvious love I also see subtle aggression (or at least superiority that could lead to acts of aggression to non-believers) inherent in the Bible and the Quran. I don't resonate with these documents as the highest way to live. But that's just my own opinion.
And as you say, we don't want this thread to become about religion because this topic of "What is terrorism" is very important. If you want to post about Islam, try this thread here: Islamophobia https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...?
We, in the West, don't generally call bombing the shit out of some Afghan village or sending drones to strike a town in Syria or invading Iraq and causing hundreds of thousands of innocent casualties as "terrorism".
Instead we call all these horrific things "collateral damage".
Why??????
If we were on the receiving end of these attacks in the "war on terror" we would feel completely terrorized.
What's the definition of 'terrorism'? | PolitiFact http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...By a two-to-one margin, Americans have consistently expressed concerns about new terrorist attacks at home. But there’s a whole lot less agreement on how to define the word "terrorism." Ask 1,000 people, you’ll probably get 1,000 answers.
"Ordinary citizens, the media, and politicians throw around the term ‘terrorism’ so loosely that in ordinary conversation it has lost all but the most vague meanings," said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla. "Some folks use it as a catch-all term to describe attacks or events that they don't like rather than being more precise."
It's ironic -- the word "terrorism" appears constantly in newscasts, congressional debates and speeches by world leaders, often as a way of securing public support for one security measure or another. But for such a widely used word, there's actually no single definition of what "terrorism" means. There are many, and often, they're incompatible.
Not only is the public confused about what to call "terrorism" -- the U.S. government is as conflicted as anyone. When Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University, published the second edition of his book Inside Terrorism in 2006, he found considerable differences in how federal agencies defined terrorism. For instance:
• Unlike other cabinet departments, which focus on attacks on civilians, the State Department includes attacks on "noncombatant targets," which can include cafes and other facilities frequented by off-duty service personnel, as well as military installations that aren’t in the midst of military hostilities.
• The FBI, unlike other agencies, addresses attacks against abortion clinics, medical research facilities and businesses accused of harming the environment. The FBI also explicitly considers private property damage to be terrorism if it’s motivated by ideology.
• The Department of Homeland Security, echoing its mission, emphasizes "critical infrastructure" and focuses on "mass destruction."
• The Defense Department puts more emphasis on the threat as opposed to the actual act of violence, and it, unlike the others, specifically cites religious aims as a rationale.
Confused yet? Get ready for more head-scratching. These four divergent and sometimes incompatible definitions -- coming from different parts of just one government -- represent merely the start of a wandering quest to nail down a definition of what comprises "terrorism."
Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor, pointed out that the Immigration and Nationality Act includes an extraordinarily broad spectrum of people who can be considered a terrorist for the purposes of immigration law. Terrorism can range anywhere from the "use of any … nuclear weapon or device" all the way down to the "transfer of funds" to a group the donor "knows, or reasonably should know," is a terrorist organization.
In other words, Spiro said, "someone who gives $5 to Hamas' humanitarian arm is considered to be engaging in terrorist activity" -- the same label afforded to someone who sets off a nuclear weapon in Times Square.
And we haven’t even brought up the differences between countries yet.
Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor, notes that the United Nations has been negotiating a comprehensive terrorism convention on and off since the early 1970s. One of the problems, he said, is that some countries want an exception for various liberation movements. For this and other reasons, "the convention is basically stuck and going nowhere," he said.
Then there are myriad definitions by non-governmental organizations and academics. In Hoffman’s book, he relates the story of Dutch-born terrorism scholar Alex P. Schmid, who spent four years researching a definition of terrorism. In the first line of the second edition of his book, Schmid wrote, somewhat exasperatedly, that the "search for an adequate definition is still on."
He’s not alone. Another terrorism scholar, Walter Laqueur, concluded that "no all-embracing definition will ever be found, for the simple reason that there is not one terrorism, but there have been many terrorisms, greatly differing in time and space, in motivation, and in manifestations and aims."
Laqueur wrote that centuries ago, "terrorism" had a "code of honor" that targeted kings, military leaders and other high officials; if such a killing endangered the target’s family, terrorists would call off the attack, even if doing so endangered their own lives.
Today, by contrast, "indiscriminate terrorism has become the rule," he wrote. "Very few leading politicians or generals have been killed, but very many wholly innocent people have."
So while terrorists once weren’t bothered by taking on the label, they now want to be known as "a freedom fighter, a guerrilla, a militant, an insurgent, a rebel, a revolutionary — anything but a terrorist, a killer of random innocents."
The power of the word "terrorism," of course, has affected governments’ behavior, too.
Governments like having loose definitions of terrorism for a couple reasons. Having a broad definition (or multiple definitions) increases a government’s options for responding. And once the government does label something "terrorism," it’s a surefire way to justify hard-edged responses to the public.
Sometimes a government will deny something is terrorism because they agree with the ultimate goal. "What is problematic is that too many places and people are not interested in arriving at a reasonable working definition because they are heavily invested in promoting terrorism," said Theodore R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Governments also benefit from the common belief that terrorism is committed by non-state actors, whether that happens to be an organized group or a "lone wolf."
"Some would argue, for example, that Allied strategic bombing during World War II was a kind of terrorism because we targeted civilians in the hope that it would help induce the governments in Japan and Germany to end the war," Janda said. "The answer often largely depends on who you're asking and what axe they have to grind."
Sometimes it’s easier to define what terrorism is not than what it is. Here are some of the notions that Hoffman considers distinct from terrorism:
• Terrorism isn’t ordinary criminal activity. Yes, terrorism can inspire some criminal activities for the purposes of raising money for the ideological cause, and some criminal gangs can use tactics that are as terror-inspiring as any terrorist group. But when a bank robber waves a gun in a teller’s face, Hoffman writes, he is "conveying no ‘message’ (political or otherwise) through his act of violence beyond facilitating the rapid handing over of his ‘loot.’ … The ordinary robber doesn’t care about changing ‘the system.’"
• Terrorists aren’t "lunatics." Terrorists may attempt to assassinate political leaders, but that doesn’t mean every assassin is a terrorist. "The lunatic assassin’s goal is more often intrinsically idiosyncratic, completely egocentric and deeply personal," Hoffman wrote, citing John Hinckley, who tried to kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981 to impress the actress Jodie Foster.
• Terrorists are more than just extremists. A credible threat of violence can qualify under this category, as can an act that aids a subsequent violent act. But a terrorist can’t simply think about violence; he or she has to take action. "Many persons, of course, harbor all sorts of radical and extreme beliefs and opinions, and many of them belong to radical or even illegal or proscribed political organizations," Hoffman wrote, "However, if they do not use violence in the pursuance of their beliefs, they cannot be considered terrorists."
The trickier lines to draw are between terrorism and two types of armed conflict -- guerrilla war and insurgency.
While there is some overlap in methods and goals between these categories, Hoffman writes, guerillas tend to be larger groups operating as a military unit and seizing territory where they exercise some degree of control over the population. Insurgencies do these things, and also coordinate propaganda to mobilize popular support against an established government, imperialist power or foreign occupier.
While Hoffman finds reasons to distinguish between these categories, he acknowledges that governments don’t necessarily agree. At the time his book was published, "nearly a third of the 37 groups on the U.S. State Department’s ‘Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations’ could just as easily be categorized as guerrillas."
And if anything, the confusion has gotten worse in recent years.
For one thing, "war" has been defined a lot more fluidly since the 9/11 attacks, writes Mary Ellen O’Connell, a University of Notre Dame law professor. O’Connell says such shades of gray have enabled the U.S.since 9/11 to counter terrorism by relying more and more on the law of armed conflict, rather than police work and criminal law -- a shift she opposes.
Janda added that attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan pose particularly thorny definitional challenges. While attacks on U.S. forces are fairly described as insurgency rather than terrorism, some of the very same attacks are also intended to threaten or kill civilians in proximity to or working with U.S. troops. Depending on the specific example, these attacks on civilians might variously be described as terrorism, genocide (if they were done to advance ethnic cleansing), or criminality (if the goal was to steal property or money).
"The debate can get very messy, and at a certain point it can become pointlessly esoteric," Janda said.
Hoffman, for what it’s worth, concluded in his book that that terrorism is "the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence in the pursuit of political change."
Hoffman’s logic was that "all terrorist acts involve violence or the threat of violence. Terrorism is specifically designed to have far-reaching psychological effects beyond the immediate victim or objects of the terrorist attack. It is meant to instil fear within, and thereby intimidate, a wider ‘target audience’ that might include a rival ethnic or religious group, an entire country, a national government or political party, or public opinion in general."
At least experts take some solace that the lack of an ironclad definition of terrorism hasn’t stopped the U.S. and it’s allies from formulating a counterterrorism policy.
"If you look at counterterrorism efforts between the U.S. and Europe, it’s not as though countries are confused and unable to cooperate effectively," said Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-met...
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The Phoenix Program: America's Use of Terror in Vietnam (other topics)On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare (other topics)
America's "War on Terrorism" (other topics)
The Grand Inquisitor's Manual: A History of Terror in the Name of God (other topics)
The Drone Memos: Targeted Killing, Secrecy, and the Law (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Noam Chomsky (other topics)Michel Chossudovsky (other topics)
Noam Chomsky (other topics)
Global Justice Clinic (NYU School of Law) (other topics)
International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (Stanford Law School) (other topics)
More...
Agreed.
And perhaps one exam..."
It's sadly very true. People of Afghanistan haven't forgotten the Maywand district killings and the Kandahar massacre and now this. Also, Ford foundation has been massively funding instability in already unstable countries. The list of wrongs being committed in one name or the other is ever increasing. Half of the times, world powers are spreading terrorism in a so-called mission to curb terrorism. Thanks for the link.