Post by Steve Gardner on Nov 25, 2007 19:07:37 GMT
From THE ALL-SEEING i
While addressing an international counter-terrorism meeting in Tunis last Thursday (15th), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), spoke about the need for the world to come up with a clear, internationally recognised definition of the term ‘terrorism’.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”– unattributed
Ihsanoglu made a similar call at a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly back in September 2005. In doing so, he brought the problem facing the body charged with coming up with a definition - the United Nations Sixth Committee on Aggression - into sharp focus.
This has proven to be the main stumbling block for the Committee, with the US and Israel, most notably, rejecting attempts to recognise the rights of those pursuing self-deterministic or nationalistic goals - the fundamental drivers behind the rise in terrorist activity - when defining the term ‘terrorism’. There was no such debate over its original meaning, however.
The first recorded use of the term ‘terrorism’ dates back to 1795 during the French Revolution. It referred specifically to the Reign of Terror (la Terreur), which was instituted by the Jacobin-led French government to defend the nation from what Louis de Saint-Just called the ‘enemies of liberty’.
In his article, Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons, Francois Furstenberg draws some disturbing parallels between 19th century Jacobism and 21st century neoconservatism.
‘When you point your finger ‘cos your plan fell through, you got three more fingers pointing back at you.’ - Mark Knopfler, Solid Rock
Furstenberg’s article is as much an allegory of post-9/11 America as it is an historical account of Revolutionary France. But as Edward Peck, former White House Terrorism Task Force Director under President Reagan, admits, suggestions of US involvement in state-sponsored terrorism stretch back well beyond 9/11.
In a 2006 interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Peck acknowledged that, when his task force was asked ‘to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government’, its work-product was rejected ‘because careful reading would indicate that [the US] had been involved in some of those activities’.
Thus the debate over what is and what isn‘t ‘terrorism’ looks set to continue, not only because the US rejects calls to recognise the rights of those pursuing self-deterministic or nationalistic goals, but also because it would never countenance the adoption of a definition that identified it as a terrorist state.
'[Doublethink is] the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…' - George Orwell - Nineteen Eighty-Four
According to George Orwell, ‘He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.’ There can be little doubt that the US, and by extension, its allies, control the present. Unless and until things change, therefore, illegal unprovoked invasions of sovereign states, mass-murders of civillians and occupations of hydrocarbon-rich lands shall be called ‘liberations’; and that those who try to defend against such atrocities shall be called ‘terrorists’.
Orwell called this self-deception ‘doublethink’, where ‘the lie is always one leap ahead of the truth’.
While addressing an international counter-terrorism meeting in Tunis last Thursday (15th), Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), spoke about the need for the world to come up with a clear, internationally recognised definition of the term ‘terrorism’.
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”– unattributed
Ihsanoglu made a similar call at a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly back in September 2005. In doing so, he brought the problem facing the body charged with coming up with a definition - the United Nations Sixth Committee on Aggression - into sharp focus.
To be equitable, any definition of terrorism should include State terrorism, and should not prejudice the rights of people struggling for their selfdetermination or under foreign occupation to resistance.
This has proven to be the main stumbling block for the Committee, with the US and Israel, most notably, rejecting attempts to recognise the rights of those pursuing self-deterministic or nationalistic goals - the fundamental drivers behind the rise in terrorist activity - when defining the term ‘terrorism’. There was no such debate over its original meaning, however.
The first recorded use of the term ‘terrorism’ dates back to 1795 during the French Revolution. It referred specifically to the Reign of Terror (la Terreur), which was instituted by the Jacobin-led French government to defend the nation from what Louis de Saint-Just called the ‘enemies of liberty’.
In his article, Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons, Francois Furstenberg draws some disturbing parallels between 19th century Jacobism and 21st century neoconservatism.
Among the Jacobins’ greatest triumphs was their ability to appropriate the rhetoric of patriotism… and to promote their political program through a tightly coordinated network of newspapers, political hacks, pamphleteers and political clubs.
Even the Jacobins’ dress distinguished “true patriots”: those who wore badges of patriotism like the liberty cap on their heads, or the cocarde tricolore (a red, white and blue rosette) on their hats or even on their lapels.
Insisting that their partisan views were identical to the national will, believing that only they could save France from apocalyptic destruction, Jacobins could not conceive of legitimate dissent. Political opponents were treasonous, stabbing France and the Revolution in the back.
To defend the nation from its enemies, Jacobins expanded the government’s police powers at the expense of civil liberties, endowing the state with the power to detain, interrogate and imprison suspects without due process. Policies like the mass warrantless searches undertaken in 1792 — “domicilary visits,” they were called — were justified, according to Georges Danton, the Jacobin leader, “when the homeland is in danger.”
Robespierre — now firmly committed to the most militant brand of Jacobinism — condemned the “treacherous insinuations” cast by those who questioned “the excessive severity of measures prescribed by the public interest.” He warned his political opponents, “This severity is alarming only for the conspirators, only for the enemies of liberty.” Such measures, then as now, were undertaken to protect the nation — indeed, to protect liberty itself.
‘When you point your finger ‘cos your plan fell through, you got three more fingers pointing back at you.’ - Mark Knopfler, Solid Rock
Furstenberg’s article is as much an allegory of post-9/11 America as it is an historical account of Revolutionary France. But as Edward Peck, former White House Terrorism Task Force Director under President Reagan, admits, suggestions of US involvement in state-sponsored terrorism stretch back well beyond 9/11.
In a 2006 interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Peck acknowledged that, when his task force was asked ‘to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government’, its work-product was rejected ‘because careful reading would indicate that [the US] had been involved in some of those activities’.
After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says -- one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.”
Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder. And I think it’s useful for people who discuss that phrase to remember that Israel was founded by terrorist organizations and terrorist leaders, Menachem Begin, who became statesmen and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. And [Hassan] Nasrallah [the leader of Hezbollah, whom Peck had met a few months prior to the interview] may not be the same kind of guy, but his intentions are the same. He wants to free his country from domination by another.
Thus the debate over what is and what isn‘t ‘terrorism’ looks set to continue, not only because the US rejects calls to recognise the rights of those pursuing self-deterministic or nationalistic goals, but also because it would never countenance the adoption of a definition that identified it as a terrorist state.
'[Doublethink is] the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them…' - George Orwell - Nineteen Eighty-Four
According to George Orwell, ‘He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.’ There can be little doubt that the US, and by extension, its allies, control the present. Unless and until things change, therefore, illegal unprovoked invasions of sovereign states, mass-murders of civillians and occupations of hydrocarbon-rich lands shall be called ‘liberations’; and that those who try to defend against such atrocities shall be called ‘terrorists’.
Orwell called this self-deception ‘doublethink’, where ‘the lie is always one leap ahead of the truth’.
