{3991}{4142}Thanks I just got back from Brazil where they don't have any fire codes,
{4158}{4262}and if you think is uncomfortable you should see a meeting there.
{4278}{4412}People packed so tight that there was a good question whetherthe
{4442}{4592}oxygen level would suffice. Fortunately there wasn't a fire|or it would have been a huge catastrophe.
{4638}{4772}Well, the title you noticed had a question mark after it and the
{4788}{4922}reason forthe question mark is that whatever has been happening for
{4953}{5066}the past several months and is going on now,|and howeveryou evaluate it,
{5073}{5176}like it, hate it, orwhatever, it's pretty clearthat
{5187}{5551}it cannot be a war on terror. In fact that's close to a logical|necessity- at least if we accept certain pretty elementary assumptions
{5577}{5672}and principles, so let me try to make those clear at the outset.
{5703}{5852}The first principle guideline if you like is that we
{5883}{5942}aught to, I wll try and I think that we should, bend over backwards
{5957}{6092}to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government
{6097}{6272}whenever its possible. So, that if there is any dispute about howto|interpret something, we wll assume they're right.
{6287}{6451}The second guideline is that we should take very seriously the
{6483}{6646}pronouncements ofleadership|especially when they are made wth great
{6657}{6826}sincerity and emotion.|So for example when George Bush tells us that
{6842}{6992}he is the most devote Christian since the Apostles,|we should believe
{6996}{7146}him, take him at his word and we should therefore conclude that he
{7152}{7306}certainly has memorized, over and over again, in his|Bible reading
{7323}{7502}classes and in church, the famous definition ofhypocrite|that's given in the gospels.
{7548}{7712}Namely, the hypocrite is the person who applies to others standards that
{7743}{7922}he refuses to apply to himself. So if you are not a hypocrite you
{7953}{8132}assume that if something is right for us then it's right forthem and|ifit is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when we do it.
{8163}{8306}That is really elementary, and I assume that the President would
{8312}{8612}agree and all ofhis admirers as well. So those are the principles|that I would like to start wth.
{8643}{8882}Well, a side comment,|unless we can rise to that minimal level of moral
{8897}{9108}integrity we should at least stop|talking about things like human rights,
{9112}{9361}right and wrong and good and evil and all such high afflatus things
{9363}{9512}because all ourtalk should be dismissed, in fact dismissed wth
{9572}{9660}complete repugnance unless we can at least|rise to that minimal level.
{9662}{9756}I think that's obvious and I hope there would|be agreement on that too.
{9777}{9870}Well wth that much in place,|just that much for background let me
{9872}{10022}formulate a thesis. The thesis is that we are all total hypocrites on
{10057}{10276}any issue relating to terrorism. Now, let me clariify the notion 'we'.
{10293}{10562}By 'we' I mean people like 'us'.|People who have enough high degree
{10572}{10846}of privilege, of training, resources, access to information for|whom it is pretty easy to find out the truth about things
{10864}{11006}If we want to. If we decide that that is ourvocation.|And in the case in
{11009}{11102}question, you don't really have to dig very deep it's all right on the surface.
{11133}{11282}So when I say 'we', I mean that category. And I definitely mean to
{11292}{11496}include myselfin 'we' because I have never proposed that our leaders
{11502}{11636}be subjected to the kinds of punishment that I have recommended for
{11643}{11732}enemies. So that is hypocrisy. So if there are people who escape it
{11763}{11906}I really don't knowthem and have not come across them.
{11913}{11996}It's a very powerful culture; it's hard to escape its grasp.
{12003}{12241}So that's thesis number one. We are all total hypocrites,|in the sense of the gospels, on the
{12247}{12426}matter of terrorism. The second thesis is stronger namely that
{12437}{12521}the first thesis is so obvious that it takes real effort to miss it.
{12537}{12686}In fact, I should go home right nowbecause it is obvious
{12693}{12831}Nevertheless, let me continue and say|why I think both theses are correct.
{12858}{12992}Well to begin wth, what is terrorism?|Got to say something about that.
{12997}{13146}That is supposed to be a really tough question. Academic seminars
{13152}{13274}and graduate philosophy programmes and so on - a very vexing and
{13278}{13429}complex question. However, in accordance wth the guidelines that
{13433}{13592}I mentioned, I think there is a simple answer, namely we just take|the official US definition of terrorism.
{13623}{13811}Since we are accepting the pronouncements of our leaders literally,
{13822}{13926}lets take their definition. In fact that is what I have always done.
{13932}{14012}I have been writing about terrorism forthe last twenty years or so.
{14027}{14187}Just accept the official definition. So for example a simple and
{14193}{14372}important case is in the US army manual|in 1984 which defines terrorism
{14382}{14522}as the calculated use of violence orthe threat of violence to attain
{14553}{14762}goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature.
{14767}{14951}Well that seems simple, appropriate. A particularly good choice|because of the timing - 1984.
{14962}{15152}1984, you wll recall, was the time that the Reagan administration was
{15162}{15296}waging a war against terrorism. Particularly what they called
{15303}{15461}state supported international terrorism "a plague spread by
{15472}{15602}depraved opponents of civilization itselfin a return to barbarism
{15612}{15752}and the modern age". I'm quoting George Shultz who was the
{15762}{15971}administration moderate. The other guideline is that we wll|keep to the moderates, not the extremists.
{15977}{16126}So that's 1984. Reagan had come into office a couple of years earlier.
{16132}{16232}His administration had immediately declared that the war against
{16236}{16396}terrorism would be the focus of US foreign policy and they identified
{16402}{16656}two regions as the source of this plague by depraved opponents of|civilization itself- Central America and the Middle East.
{16662}{16862}And there was quite wde agreement on that and so in 1985, for example,
{16893}{17181}every yearthe associated press has a pole of editors on the most|important story of the year, and in 1985 the wnnerwas Middle East
{17187}{17582}terrorism. So they agree. Right towards the end of that year, 1985,|Shimon Peres, Israel's Prime Minister, came to Washington and Reagan
{17587}{17822}and Peres denounced the evil scourge of terrorism, referring to the|Middle East.
{17853}{17972}Scholarship and experts also agree. There is a huge literature
{17977}{18266}forthe last 20 years on terrorism, particularly state supported|international terrorism. We don't have time reviewit but
{18273}{18602}a good illustration which I wll keep to is the December 2001|issue of the journal Current History- good and serious journal,
{18607}{18782}it's article called 'America at War' includes leading historians,
{18813}{19011}specialists and experts on terrorism and they identiify the 1980's
{19017}{19232}as the era of state sponsored terror,|agreeing wth the Reagan administration.
{19234}{19331}I agree wth that too. I think it was the era of state sponsored
{19337}{19502}international terrorism. One leading author, Martha Crenshaw
{19505}{19641}says that in that era the United States adopted a pro-active
{19647}{19796}stance to deterthe plague. Mostly it's about the Middle East
{19803}{19922}but Central America is occasionally mentioned. For example US
{19925}{20072}support for one ortwo authors or co-authors from The Workman's
{20075}{20372}Institution describe the US Contra War against Nicaragua as a|model for howto fight a war against terrorism.
{20403}{20552}They say that was a model for US support forthe Northern Alliance
{20583}{20732}in the current phase of the war against terrorism. The seeds
{20735}{20882}of contemporary terrorism however are much deeperthough.
{20885}{21092}The major historian in the group, David Rapoport - the leading
{21095}{21212}academic specialist on terrorism, editor of|the Journal ofTerrorism and so on.
{21215}{21351}He points out that it goes back to the origins of modern
{21357}{21452}terrorism, like Osama bin Laden,|it goes back to the early 1960's
{21483}{21632}and I am quoting him now, "when Vietcong terror against
{21635}{21722}the American Goliath kindled the hopes that the Western
{21725}{21902}heartland was vulnerable". I won't comment on that but,
{21905}{22352}just as an exercise, you might try to find a historical|analog to that statement somewhere. I'Iljust leave it at that.
{22383}{22562}Without commenting, if you check through the scholarly literature|you'll find the same story all the time, virtual exceptions.
{22597}{22742}The world agreed wth the Reaganites too. In 1985, right
{22773}{22892}after Reagan and Peres had denounced the evil scourge of
{22906}{22981}terrorism, the General Assembly passed a resolution
{22983}{23191}condemning terrorism, and in 1987, it passed a much stronger|resolution and a much more explicit one denouncing terrorism
{23193}{23402}in all its forms and calling on all states to do everything|they can to fight against the plague and everything you like.
{23433}{23582}It's true that that wasn't unanimous. There was one abstention
{23585}{23730}namely Honduras and two votes against - the usual two.
{23733}{23850}They gave their reasons forvoting against the major UN resolution
{23853}{24015}on international terrorism, namely both states, The United States
{24031}{24091}and Israel, pointed to the same paragraph as the reason for
{24093}{24210}their negative vote. It was a paragraph that said that 'nothing
{24212}{24300}in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the
{24302}{24558}right to self determination, freedom and independence,|as derived from the United Nations Charter, of people forcibly
{24560}{24797}derived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and|racist regimes and foreign occupation, or could deprive
{24813}{25007}them of the right to obtain support for others in these ends|in accord wth the charterwth the United Nations'.
{25023}{25133}That was the offending paragraph, and it is easy to understand
{25135}{25292}why it raised a serious problem forthe United States and Israel.
{25294}{25412}The African National Congress was identified officially as a
{25414}{25681}terrorist organization in the United States and South Africa was officially an|ally. But, the phrase 'struggle against colonial
{25683}{25922}and racist regimes' plainly referred to the struggle of the|ANC against the apartheid regimes. So that's unacceptable.
{25968}{26132}The phrase foreign occupation, everyone understood referred
{26163}{26222}to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, then in
{26224}{26552}its 20th year. Extremely harsh and brutal from the beginning|and continuing only because of decisive US military, economic
{26583}{26792}and diplomatic support that runs up to the present.|So obviously that was unacceptable.
{26823}{26972}So therefore it was 153-2 wth one abstention. So it wasn't
{27018}{27110}totally unanimous. It wasn't reported and it has disappeared
{27112}{27240}from history. You can check to find out. Incidentally that's
{27242}{27527}standard practice. When the master says something is wrong its dowr the|memory hole, doesn't get reported and its forgotten.
{27558}{27767}But it's there. If you want to look you can discover it, I'll|give you the sources if you like.
{27770}{27872}Well, Reagan at that time, let's recall, he and Peres were
{27876}{27992}talking about the evil scourge of terrorism in the Middle East,
{27995}{28194}George Shultz didn't entirely agree. He thought that what he|called the most alarming manifestation of state sponsored
{28197}{28555}terrorism was frighteningly close to home. Namely it was a|'cancer in our landmass, a cancer right nearby that was
{28561}{28712}threatening to conquerthe hemisphere wth a revolution|wthout borders'.
{28715}{29005}A rather interesting propaganda fabrication revealed to be a fraud instantly|but always used repeatedly afterwards, even by
{29009}{29108}the same journals that explained why it was as total fabrication.
{29111}{29278}It was just too useful to abandon.|And there is also an interesting, if you think about it the
{29282}{29402}fabrication had a certain element of truth in it, an important
{29405}{29595}element of truth. We can come back to that if you like.|Anyhowthis cancer in our land mass was threatening to conquer
{29599}{29792}everything openly followng Hitler's Mein Kampf and we|plainly had to do something about that.
{29801}{29972}There is a serious day in the United States called Law Day.
{29975}{30123}Elsewhere in the world is called May Day. May 1st, a day for
{30126}{30272}the support of the struggles of the American
{30275}{30449}workers for an 8 hour day. But in the United States|it's a jingoist holiday called Law Day.
{30451}{30632}On Law Day 1985, President Reagan declared a
{30635}{30872}National emergency because the government ofNicaragua|'constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the
{30875}{31055}national security and foreign policy of the United States'.|That was renewed annually.
{31058}{31200}George Schultz informed Congress that 'we must cut the
{31203}{31337}Nicaraguan cancer out and not by gentle means',
{31340}{31427}things are too serious forthat and so to quote Schultz,
{31430}{31524}recall, the adminstration moderate. The 'good cop'.
{31550}{31817}To quote Schultz he said "Negotiations are a euphemism|for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across
{31847}{32101}the bargaining table". He condemned those who|"advocate utopian legalistic means like outside mediation,
{32104}{32393}the United Nations, the World Court while ignoring the|power element of the equation". I'll avoid quoting hard-liners.
{32396}{32560}At that time the United States was exercising the power element
{32563}{32712}of the equation wth mercenary forces based in Honduras
{32715}{32816}attacking Nicaragua. They were underthe supervision of
{32819}{32967}John Negroponte who was just appointed to run the diplomatic
{32970}{33182}side of the diplomatic component of the current war on|terror as the UN Ambassador.
{33185}{33285}The military component of the current war on terror is
{33288}{33410}Donald Rumsfeld who at that time was Ronald Reagan's
{33413}{33662}special envoy to the Middle East; the other place where|the plague was raging through 1985 in fact.
{33665}{33930}The United States at that time was also blocking utopian,|legalistic means that were being pursued by the World Court,
{33933}{34203}the Latin American countries and others, and it continued to block those|means, right until the end, until the final
{34206}{34502}victory ofits terrorist wars throughout central America.|Well, howwas the war against state sponsored terrorism
{34504}{34772}waged in those two regions by the people who in fact are|leading the newphase, so pretty close historical
{34775}{34832}continuity not just those two of course.
{34834}{35096}Well, just to illustrate, lets pick the peak year,
{35117}{35190}the worst year, 1985 in the Middle East.
{35193}{35342}Top story of the year. So who wns the prize forthe|worst acts of terrorism in the Middle East in 1985?
{35345}{35522}Well I know of three candidates,|maybe you can suggest a different one.
{35526}{35822}One candidate is a car bombing in Beirut in 1985.|The carwas placed outside a Mosque.
{35826}{35972}The bomb was timed to go off when people were leaving|to make sure it killed the maximum number of people.
{35976}{36152}It killed, according to the Washing Post, 80 people.
{36155}{36287}It wounded over 250, mostly women and girls leaving the mosque.
{36303}{36407}There was a huge explosion so it blewup the whole street
{36423}{36527}killing babies in beds and so on and so forth.
{36543}{36647}The bomb was aimed at a Muslim Sheik who escaped.
{36663}{36767}It was set offby the CIA in collaboration wth
{36783}{36930}British Intelligence and Saudi Intelligence and
{36933}{37082}specifically authorized by William Casey according to Bob Woodwards,
{37085}{37127}the History of Casey and the CIA. So that is a
{37143}{37247}clear-cut example of International Terrorism.
{37263}{37367}Very unambiguous and I think it is one of the
{37383}{37451}candidates forthe prize forthe peak year of 1985.
{37462}{37697}Another candidate surely would be the so-called Iron Fist operations
{37713}{37801}that Shimon Peres Government was carrying out in occupied
{37804}{38010}southern Lebanon in March of 1985. This is in Southern Lebanon,
{38014}{38140}which was under military occupation in violation of the
{38143}{38340}Security Council orderto leave, but wth US authorization.
{38343}{38657}The Iron Fist operations were targeting what the high command called|'terrorist villagers in Southern Lebanon'.
{38660}{38987}It included many massacres and atrocities and kidnapping|of people for interrogation and taking them to Israel and so on.
{39003}{39107}It reached new depths of calculated brutality and arbitrary
{39110}{39257}murder according to a western diplomat familiarwth the region,
{39260}{39497}who was observing. There was no pretense of self-defense rather it was|openly undertaken for political ends. It was conceded
{39500}{39707}it wasn't even argued. So that's a clear case ofinternational|terrorism although here we might say that it is aggression.
{39723}{39960}I'll call it just international terrorism in line wth the|principle that we bend over backwards to give the United States
{39963}{40170}the benefit of the doubt. Of course this is a US operation.|Israel does it because they are given arms and aid diplomatic
{40173}{40247}support by the United States.
{40263}{40337}So we wll decide to call this just international terrorism
{40340}{40457}not the much more serious war crime of aggression.
{40460}{40667}The same incidentally was true of the much worst operations of
{40670}{40967}1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and killed maybe twenty thousand or so|people. Again, crucial US military, economic and
{40983}{41147}diplomatic support. The US had to veto a couple of Security Council|resolutions to keep the slaughter going, provided the arms and
{41163}{41327}so on for it. So it's a US/Israeli invasion if we are honest.
{41330}{41747}"The goal was to install a friendly regime in Lebanon and|oust the PLO, which would help persuade the Palestinians
{41763}{41927}to accept Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza".|That's actually accurate and I have to compliment the
{41943}{42077}New York Times in saying that on January 24th.
{42093}{42167}As far as I knowthis is the first time in mainstream US literature
{42170}{42287}that anyone has dared to say what was absolutely common knowledge
{42290}{42527}in Israel and in the dissident literature 20 years ago.|I was writing this in 1983 just using Israeli sources but it
{42543}{42677}couldn't penetrate US commentary. You might check and see.|As far as I know, this was the first break through.
{42693}{42782}I am not sure the reporter understood what he was saying.
{42813}{42992}But anyway he did say that - James Bennet January 24th,
{43023}{43097}prize for James Bennet fortelling the truth after 20years.
{43100}{43277}And its true, and of course it's a textbook illustration of
{43280}{43487}international terrorism. This time we have to bend over|backwards pretty farto call it international terrorism because
{43490}{43787}it is hard to say why this isn't overt aggression - the kind of|action forwhich US and Israeli leaders should be subjected to
{43790}{44057}Nuremberg trials. Real serious war crimes. But again lets|keep to the guidelines and lets say its only international terrorism.
{44073}{44246}Well that's the second example. The Iron Fist operations.
{44252}{44387}Third. The only other example from 1985 that I know of took
{44389}{44537}place two days before Shimon Peres arrived in Washington to
{44540}{44657}join Reagan in denouncing the evil scourge of terrorism.
{44660}{45077}Shortly before that, Peres sent the Israeli airforce to bomb|Tunis killing 75 civilizations, torn to shreds wth smart bombs.
{45079}{45167}It was all rather accurately and graphically depicted by a
{45169}{45347}highly respected Israeli reporter in the Hebrewpress in
{45350}{45467}Israel and cooperated by other sources. The United States
{45470}{45690}cooperated wth that by wthdrawng the 6th fleet so that they|did not have to inform their ally, Tunisia, that the bombers
{45693}{45977}were on theirway. Presumably getting refueled on the way.|So that's the third candidate. I don't know of any other
{45980}{46157}candidates that even come close to being candidates for?
{46160}{46247}Incidentally, George Schultz, the moderate, immediately afterthe
{46249}{46367}bombing, he telephoned the Israeli Foreign Ministerto say that
{46370}{46637}the United States had considerable sympathy forthis operation but|he backed away from open support for massive international terrorism
{46640}{46967}or maybe aggression when the security council unanimously condemned|the attack as an attack of armed aggression.
{46983}{47081}The United Stated again abstaining against that.
{47090}{47267}So those are the top three cases that wn the prize for 1985 to
{47283}{47417}my knowledge and again I'll assume that these are just
{47433}{47567}international terrorism so we are not calling for Nuremberg trials.
{47583}{47717}Just more international terrorism by depraved opponents of|civilizations itself, and examples which are pretty hard to miss
{47733}{47933}remember because these are the peak stories of the year.|International terrorism in the Middle East there's three
{47936}{48077}perfect examples. In fact the only three major examples that I know of.
{48108}{48272}However, they aren't candidates. In fact, they are not even in the running.|They are not competitive.
{48275}{48557}The examples that are in the running are for example cited in the Current|History issue, to which I referred,
{48573}{48797}which does discuss 1985 and gives two examples of the|evil scourge of terrorism. Namely the hijacking ofTWA897,
{48813}{49037}killing one American navy diver|and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro which led to the
{49053}{49217}killing of Klinghoffer, a crippled American.
{49248}{49412}Both surely terrorist atrocities.|Those are the two examples that are in the running,
{49443}{49637}that are memorable, that count for international terrorism.|Well the hijackers forthe TWA plane claim,
{49653}{49847}correctly in fact, that Israel was regularly high jacking|ships in the international waters in transit between
{49863}{50160}Lebanon and Cyprus, killing people and kidnapping others,|taking them to Israel, eitherfor interrogation
{50163}{50520}or simply as hostages, keeping them in jail foryears.|Some people are still in jail wthout charges.
{50523}{50717}But that doesn't justiify the hijacking on the assumption,|which I accept at least, that violence is not legitimate
{50733}{51090}in retaliation against even worst atrocities|or as preemption against future atrocities.
{51093}{51240}Violence is not legitimate in such cases so we can|dismiss those claims though they are in fact correct.
{51243}{51347}Incidentally, the US-Israeli hijackings, and remember,|if Israel does it we are doing it,
{51363}{51557}those hijackings are also out of the historical records.
{51573}{51647}Occasionally you find a reference to them in the
{51650}{51767}bottom of a column on something or other,|but they are not part of the history of terrorism.
{51770}{52097}The hijackers of the Achille Lauro claimed that this was|retaliation forthe bombing ofTunis
{52100}{52198}a couple of days earlier.|Well, we dismiss that wth contempt on the same principle,
{52201}{52487}namely violence is not justified in retaliation or preemption.
{52503}{52667}Assuming that we can rise to the minimal, moral,
{52683}{52847}level that I mentioned earlier- if we are not confirmed
{52863}{52997}hypocrites in otherwords - then some consequences follow|about other acts of retaliation and preemption, but that's too obvious
{53000}{53207}to talk about, so I wlljust leave it foryou to think about.|Well that's 1985 - the peak year ofinternational terrorism
{53223}{53357}in the Middle East.
{53373}{53507}As a research project, you might see if I have left out|anything that is a competitorforthe prize
{53523}{53657}that I am not aware of. None are mentioned on the|literature on terrorism.
{53673}{53807}As I said at the beginning you don't really have to work|very hard to see these things.
{53823}{54091}You have to work very hard not to see them;|it takes a really good education to miss this.
{54107}{54270}1985 was of course not the first orthe last act of
{54273}{54377}international terrorism in the Middle East.|There are many others that are very important.
{54380}{54677}For example, in 1975, Israel, meaning Israeli pilots|wth US planes and US support,
{54693}{54857}in December 1975 they bombed a village in Lebanon|killing over 50 people. No pre-text was offered,
{54873}{55037}but everybody knewwhat the reason was.
{55053}{55127}At that time the UN security council was meeting to
{55130}{55457}consider a resolution which was supported by the entire world|wth marginal exceptions, only one crucial exception,
{55473}{55637}the United States which vetoed the resolution,|calling for a diplomatic settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict,
{55639}{55877}incorporating the UN 242 and all ofits wording|of the main resolution, security and territorial integrity
{55893}{56087}and all those nice things on the internationally recognized border.
{56103}{56177}The offending part of this one was that it also
{56179}{56327}referred to Palestinian National Rights and that's not acceptable
{56329}{56537}to the United States. It rejected them then, and it rejects them now,|contrary to a lot of nonsense that you read.
{56540}{56807}The US vetoed the resolution that continued year afteryear,|and is still going on now, of efforts of diplomatic settlement,
{56823}{56987}which the US has unilaterally blocked.|Israel does not have a veto at the Security Council
{57003}{57167}so they reacted to the debate by bombing Lebanon and killing|about 50 people wthout a pretext.
{57183}{57347}That's not in the annals ofinternational terrorisms either.
{57709}{57797}The US supported both of them, lots of deaths,
{57800}{58067}hundreds of thousands of people driven out and so on.|Clinton had to back offhis support forthe 1996 invasion
{58083}{58291}afterthe Qana massacre, over a hundred people in a UN refugee camp. At|the point he said, can't handle this any more, you better leave.
{58293}{58427}There was no pretext of self-defense in this case.
{58458}{58637}This is just outright international terrorism or maybe aggression.
{58653}{58697}And it continues. So lets go up to the current intifada,
{58700}{58967}which broke out on September 30th of year 2000.|In the first couple of days there was no fire from Palestinians,
{58970}{59267}some stone throwng, but Israel was in fact using|US attack helicopters to attack civilian appartment complexes and so on,
{59283}{59477}killing and wounding dozens of people in the first few days.|The Clinton administration responded to this by,
{59480}{59657}I'll borrow our President's phrase, by 'enhancing terror'.
{59659}{59837}You recall President Bush condemned the Palestinians for
{59840}{59897}enhancing terror last month, so I'll use his phrase in line
{59900}{59957}wth the guidelines. The Clinton Administration committed
{59960}{60287}itself to enhancing terror on October 3rd by making a deal|forthe biggest shipment in a decade of military helicopters
{60290}{60497}to Israel along wth spare parts forthe Apache attack|helicopters that were sent a couple of weeks earlier.
{60500}{60737}That's enhancing terror. In days right after, these helicopters|were being used to murder and wound civilians, attacking apartment
{60740}{60977}complexes and so on. The press cooperated by refusing to report this.
{60980}{61200}Note: Not failing to report it - refusing to report it.|It was specifically brought to the attention of editors and
{61203}{61531}they simply made it clearthat they were not going to report it.|There is no question about the facts incidentally, but to this
{61550}{61697}day it has not been reported, except in the margins.|That policy continues, skip to December 2001,
{61713}{62010}George Bush was condemning the Palestinians for enhancing terror|and he contributed in the conventional ways to enhancing terror,
{62013}{62147}in crucial ways in fact.
{62178}{62327}On December 15th the UN Security Council debated a European
{62343}{62507}initiated resolution, calling on both sides to reduce violence and
{62523}{62687}calling forthe introduction ofinternational monitors to assist
{62703}{62940}in monitoring a reduction of violence. That's a very important step.|That was vetoed by the United States. It went to the... who want
{62943}{63047}to enhance violence It's hard to think of any other interpretation|of this. The press didn't have to bother giving an interpretation
{63063}{63287}The press didn't have to bother giving and interpretation because it was|barely reported.
{63303}{63377}It then went to the General Assembly where it wasn't reported
{63379}{63587}at all and there was an overwhelming vote supporting the same|resolution. This time the United States and Israel were not
{63590}{63827}entirely isolated in opposition as several Pacific Islands joined in|- Nauru and one ortwo others. So therefore, not the usual
{63843}{64037}splendid isolation.
{64053}{64187}I don't recall that that was reported. About 10 days before that
{64203}{64337}there was another major contribution to enhancing terror.
{64353}{64487}The fourth Geneva conventions, according to the entire world,
{64503}{64637}literally, outside of Israel, applied to the occupied territories.
{64653}{64907}The United States refuses. It doesn't vote against this when it|comes up in the United Nations. It abstains. I presume the reason
{64923}{65057}is the United States doesn't want to take such an open blatant|stand in violation of fundamental principles ofinternational law,
{65073}{65177}particularly because of the circumstances underwhich they were enacted.
{65180}{65357}If you recall the Geneva Conventions were established right after
{65359}{65447}the 2nd world war in orderto criminalize the acts of the Nazis,
{65450}{65567}so saying they don't apply is pretty strong statement. However,
{65570}{65717}outside of the United States and Israel, the whole world agrees.
{65720}{65807}The international Red Cross, which is the Agency responsible for
{65810}{66077}applying and interpreting them agrees. In fact, as far as I am aware,|there is no further question about this. Swtzerland, which is the
{66080}{66287}responsible state, called a meeting of the high contracting parties|forthe Geneva conventions, that is, those like the United States
{66303}{66407}that are legally obligated by treaty to enforce them.
{66409}{66527}A high solemn commitment, called a meeting on December
{66530}{66737}5th in Geneva and the meeting took place and passed a strong
{66740}{66977}resolution determining that the Geneva conventions do apply|to the Occupied Territories which makes illegaljust about
{66993}{67127}everything that the United States and Israel do there.|They went through the list - settlements, displacements and
{67143}{67247}everything that goes on.
{67250}{67367}The United States boycotted the sessions. They got another
{67369}{67577}country to boycott them - Australia. According to the|Australian press, under heavy US pressure Australia joined
{67580}{67787}in boycotting them. If the US boycotts it its like a|negative vote at the Security Council orthe General Assembly.
{67790}{67997}It doesn't get reported and it's out ofhistory.|But that's another important step to enhancing terror.
{68013}{68147}All this took place incidentally in the midst of a 21 day truce.
{68150}{68267}A one sided truce. The Palestinians weren't carrying out any
{68269}{68507}acts but a couple of dozen Palestinians were killed,|including a dozen children. That was right in the middle of
{68510}{68747}these efforts to enhance terrortook place. Maybe that's an|unfair interpretation and there is some other motive that I'm
{68750}{68987}not thinking of, but that's what they look like to me.|You can think about that. In any event International Terrorism
{68989}{69167}in the Middle East certainly continues and has a long history|and if you look overthe record of course it is mixed and
{69170}{69437}complicated but I think you wll find that the balance is|pretty much along the lines that I described, in fact the
{69453}{69536}balance reflects the means of violence available as it usually does.
{69542}{69767}If you look around at terror, in fact, that's why, in the whole
{69783}{70021}range of terror, state terror is farworse than individual terror|forthe obvious reason that States have means of violence that
{70023}{70320}individuals don't have, or groups. And that's what you find if|you look, I think overwhelmingly. It is commonly said that
{70323}{70440}That's completely false - at least if you accept the official
{70443}{70637}US definition of terror. If you do that then terror is|overwhelming the weapon of the strong like most otherweapons.
{70639}{70997}Well that's history but all of this stuffis out ofhistory.|History is what is created by well-educated intellectuals and
{71013}{71280}it doesn't have to have any resemblance to that thing called|history by naive people and if you check this I think you wll
{71283}{71351}find this true.
{71357}{71447}Well that's the Middle East; lets turn to Central America
{71449}{71597}the other main focus of the plague by depraved opponents of
{71599}{71867}civilizations itself. Here I wll be briefbecause the core|parts are uncontroversial. At least uncontroversial among
{71869}{72109}people who have minimal regard for international lawand international|institutions and so on. Actually the size of that
{72111}{72377}category is very easily estimated. Namely, ask yourselfhow|often what I'm about to say has appeared in the discussions
{72380}{72587}about the evil plague of terrorism in the past five months.
{72603}{72647}Huge flood but howmuch has been devoted to some uncontroversial
{72650}{72797}cases, again uncontroversial if you think the World Court and
{72800}{72917}Security Council and international lawhave some significance.
{72919}{73067}Well in 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned the
{73069}{73277}United States for international terrorism - unlawful use of|force in its war against Nicaragua. Again I am going to keep
{73279}{73517}to the guidelines, bend over backwards, and allowthis to be|interpreted just as international terrorism, not the war crime
{73519}{73770}of aggression. So we wll call it international terrorism.|The court ordered the United States to terminate the crimes
{73773}{73907}and to pay substantial reparations - millions of dollars.
{73909}{74057}Congress reacted by instantly escalating the war by newfunding
{74059}{74327}to escalate the war. Nicaragua took the matterto the Security Council,|which debated a resolution calling on all states to observe
{74329}{74610}international law, mentioning no one but everyone who was meant.|The US vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to the general Assembly
{74613}{74850}which past similar resolutions in successive years.|The United States and Israel apposed and in one yearthey got
{74853}{74896}El Salvador.
{74912}{75047}All of this is out ofhistory. It has to be. It is just inconsistent
{75049}{75197}wth their preferred image of what history is supposed to be and,
{75199}{75497}as I say, you can check howmuch, these uncontroversial cases have been|referred to recently and rememberwho were the individuals
{75500}{75677}responsible. People like Negroponte, Proconsul ofHonduras,
{75679}{75797}Rumsfeld, special envoy to the Middle East,|and so on, plenty of continuity.
{75799}{76247}The US, as I said, reacted by escalating the war and forthe|first time giving official orders to its mercenary forces to
{76249}{76397}attack what are called 'soft targets'. That's what the|Southern Command called them - 'soft targets' meaning
{76399}{76607}undefended civilian targets like agricultural|cooperatives and so on. That was knowr and it was discussed
{76609}{76697}in the United States.
{76699}{76757}It was considered legitimate by the 'Left', so
{76759}{76997}Michael Kinsley who represents the 'Left' in the main stream debate,
{77000}{77147}in an interesting article, he was then editor of the New Republic,|in which he said that, we shouldn't be too quick to condemn
{77149}{77447}State department authorization for attacks on undefended|civilian targets, because we have to apply pragmatic criteria.
{77463}{77627}We have to carry out cost benefit analysis and see whether,|as he put it, the amount ofblood poured in is compensated
{77643}{77777}by a good outcome namely democracy.
{77779}{77867}What we wll determine to be democracy and what that means
{77870}{77987}you can see by looking at the states next door like
{77989}{78077}El Salvador and Guatemala which were OK democracies.
{78079}{78197}And ifit passes ourtest then that's it, OK. So, in otherwords,
{78199}{78497}international terrorism is fine assuming it meets pragmatic|criteria nowacross the spectrum. Left or Right among 'we',
{78499}{78797}that is educated and privileged intellectuals, not the|population of course. In Nicaragua the population had an
{78799}{79007}army to defend it. It was bad enough, ten's of thousands|of people killed, the country practically devastated,
{79009}{79277}may never recover, but it had an army to defend it.|In El Salvador and Guatemala, that wasn't true, the army
{79280}{79457}was the State terrorists. The US supported state terrorists. They were the|army. There was no one to defend the population
{79459}{79577}and in fact the atrocities were farworse. Also they are not
{79579}{79817}a State so they could not go to the World Court orthe|Security Council to followlegal means, of course wthout any effect,
{79819}{80147}because 'we', people like us, have determined that the world is|going to be ruled by force not by lawand since we have the power,
{80163}{80327}as long as we determine that, a state that tries to followa|legitimate means of responding to international terrorism
{80343}{80387}doesn't having anything to do.
{80389}{80477}But that's our choice, nobody else's choice. You can't blame
{80479}{80807}anyone else on that. There was however popular resistance,|not elite resistance, but popular resistance, to the atrocities
{80823}{81107}there that the US had to resort to an international terrorist|network- an extraordinary international terrorist network.
{81123}{81287}Rememberthe US is a powerful state its not like Libya.|If Libya wants to carry out terrorist acts they hire Carlos
{81303}{81407}The Jackal or something
{81409}{81527}The United States hires terrorist states - we're big guys.
{81529}{81887}So the terrorist network consisted ofTaiwan, Britain, Israel,|Argentina, at least as long as it was underthe rule of the
{81903}{82097}neo Nazi generals. When they were unfortunately removed,|they fell out of the system, Saudi Arabian funding.
{82113}{82307}Quite a substantial international terrorist network,|never been anything like it. In contemporary terms we
{82323}{82427}might call it an 'Axis of Evil' I suppose.
{82429}{82607}The outcome, again keeping to the guidelines - we believe
{82609}{82757}our leaders, was hundred of thousands of people slaughtered
{82759}{82907}and millions of orphans and refugees. Every conceivable atrocity.
{82910}{83057}The region devastated. The single uncontroversial case,
{83059}{83207}Nicaragua, which was the least of them, that alone far surpasses
{83209}{83477}the crimes of September 11th and the others suffered farworse.|Again we are bending over backwards and giving the US the
{83479}{83681}benefit of the doubt so we are only calling it international|terrorism organized by depraved opponents of civilization itself.
{83692}{83867}Well that's the second major area, Central America.
{83898}{84017}All of this however is off the record too, the
{84033}{84167}Current History journal, and its typical in this respect,|nothing that I have just referred to is mentioned.
{84169}{84317}Nor is it in the whole scholarly literature in fact,|except way at the margins. You can check and see.
{84319}{84527}It just doesn't count. The 80's are described as the|era of state sponsored international terrorism, but they
{84543}{84617}are not referring to any of these things.
{84619}{84887}The US was trying to prevent state sponsored international terrorism by|taking pro-active means like the most massive
{84889}{85067}international terrorist network that's ever been know.
{85069}{85307}That's very typical of the scholarly literature journalism|and again you can do a check. There has barely been a word
{85309}{85637}on any of this as the second phase of the war on terrorism|has been declared once again wth pretty much the same people
{85653}{85826}and every reason to expect some more outcomes.
{85832}{85967}Well, from all of this an obvious conclusion follows: There is an
{85969}{86057}operational definition of terrorism, the one that is actually used.
{86059}{86267}It means terrorthat they carry out against us - that's terrorism,
{86269}{86447}nothing else passes through the filter.|As far as I knowthat's a
{86449}{86672}historical universal. I can't find an exception to that,|you might try.
{86688}{86747}For example the Japanese in China and Manchuria were defending
{86749}{86927}the population against Chinese terrorist and going to create an
{86929}{87047}earthy paradise forthem if they could control the terrorists.
{87049}{87270}The Nazi's in occupied Europe were defending the legitimate|governments likes Vichy and the population from the terrorist
{87272}{87467}partisans who were supported from abroad, as indeed they were.|They were run from London, Poland and France and so on.
{87469}{87767}The fact that I say I can't find an exception, you might try,|also as far as I am aware this is virtually universal among
{87783}{87887}intellectuals, educated folks like us.
{87889}{88007}Apart from statistical errorthis is the line that they take.
{88009}{88097}Nowit doesn't look that way in history, but you have to remember
{88099}{88320}who writes history. That ought to leave you wth a little skepticism.|If you look at actual history not the one that's written I think
{88323}{88592}you wll find that this is the case and I could even maybe suggest|it as a research topic to some enterprising graduate student
{88594}{88851}who aspires to a career as a taxi driver.
{88862}{89027}Just to continue to the present, lets just take the last couple
{89043}{89117}of months. September 11th was the perfectly clear example of
{89119}{89310}international terrorism, no controversy about that so we don't|have to waste time on it. What about the reaction? Well it
{89313}{89537}turns out the reaction is also an uncontroversial case of|international terrorism. Again lets keep to the guidelines
{89539}{89627}we'Iljust listen to what our leaders say.
{89629}{90090}So on October 11th President Bush announced to the Afghan people that|we wll keep bombing you until you hand over
{90093}{90167}people who we suspect of terrorist acts although we refuse
{90169}{90287}to provide any evidence and we refuse to enter into any
{90289}{90647}negotiations for extradition and transfer- a clear case of|international terrorism. On October 28th the British counterpart
{90649}{90991}Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who is the Chief of the British|Defense staff, took it a step further. Remember, getting rid
{90993}{91126}of the Taliban Regime was not a war aim, that was an afterthought.
{91128}{91217}Three weeks afterthe bombing began that was added presumably
{91233}{91337}so that intellectuals would have something to feel good about
{91339}{91637}or something, I don't know, anyway three weeks afterthe bombing,|that was added as a newwar aim and Admiral Boyce announced to
{91653}{91847}the Afghan people accordingly, I think this was the first mention|of this war aim, that "we wll continue bombing you until you
{91863}{91915}change your leadership".
{91917}{92040}First, that was all very prominent, page 1 of the New York Times
{92043}{92190}in both cases. Two, both cases are textbook illustrations of
{92193}{92280}international terrorism if not aggression, but we are still
{92283}{92447}bending over backwards, and it's all off the record by usual
{92449}{92711}convention. We're doing it so it doesn't count. It's only|when they carry out what we officially define as terrorism that it counts.
{92719}{92897}Well, it's easy to go on, but let me just return to the weak thesis;
{92899}{93077}there can't be a war against terrorism as terrorism is defined in
{93079}{93347}official US documents. It's a logical impossibility.|This is a small sample ofillustrations, you can go on easily,
{93363}{93527}but it's enough to showthat that can't be true. Well that's|the weak thesis. What about the strong thesis that it is all
{93543}{93737}so entirely obvious that it would be embarrassing to talk about|it because its all right on the surface
{93739}{93827}nothing hidden about any of this.
{93829}{93947}Everything that I mention is perfectly well knowr you don't
{93949}{94127}have to penetrate anything to discover. No obscure sources,|nothing. Just the obvious evidence.
{94129}{94397}And you can easily add to it. There's a ton ofliterature about|it forthe last 20 years, but that literature also can't be
{94399}{94607}discussed because it comes out wth the wrong conclusion.|So it's treated the same way terrorism is in our intellectual culture.
{94623}{94727}Again, choice not a necessity.
{94729}{94877}So we end up wth a kind of dilemma. If we are not honest,
{94879}{94967}forget it. If we are honest there's a dilemma.
{94969}{95127}One possibility is just to acknowledge that we are total hypocrites
{95129}{95283}and then to at least have the decently to stop talking about
{95285}{95537}human rights, right and wrong and good and evil and so on and|say we are hypocrites and we have force and
{95539}{95657}we are going to run the world by force, period.|Lets forget about everything else.
{95659}{96015}The other option is harderto pursue but it's imperative|unless we would like to contribute to still worst disasters
{96017}{96137}that are likely to lie ahead.
{96162}{96287}Odwied www.NAPiSY.info
