Guerre ou Terrorisme?
Chris Hawkins
pete...@ozemail.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
> Snip the cascade -- just me and McCall:
>
> > :> :> Terrorist is as terrorist does. They're terrorists.
> > :> :
> > :> :I see. Panama and Grenada were "wars", were they? What about Waco?
> > :>
> > :> Yeah, they were. All the usual stuff that goes with wars; you know,
> > :> not bombing civilian shit rather than military targets, stuff like
> > :> that.
Hmmm. What were the US bombings of villages in Southeast Asia? The
destruction of "soft targets" (i.e., hospitals, schools, health clinics)
by the US-backed contras in Nicaragua? The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which
the US knew of in advance and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
The Indonesian massacre (supported by US arms and vetoes of UN Security
Council resolutions) of the population of East Timor? The death squads of
El Salvador and Guatamala (US-supported governments)?
It's important to recognize and denounce terrorism anywhere, by anyone. If
HAMAS or the IRA kill civilians with car bombs and the like, we rightly
protest. Of course, what is not obvious from mainstream US media coverage
is that US foreign policy is largely indifferent to terrorism and human
rights abuses in general. The ultimate criterion is the "national
interest," the means to achieve it are irrelevant. If the effect of
terrorism is consistent with US policy, the US will ignore it or even
support it. That's _realpolitik_. What is amusing is that those who
support _realpolitik_ are also the ones most likely to champion the myth
that the US is the foremost proponent of democracy and human rights. The
goal of newspeak is doublethink, the ability to hold two diametrically
opposed and logically inconsistent beliefs simultaneously.
> > :I see. There was a declaration of war, yes? No surprise attacks? Plenty
> > :of warning so that civilians could clear the area?
> >
> > Excuse me, but the difference between a terrorist action and
> > collateral damage during a military operation is that the terrorist
> > has civilians as the intended target. The military operation has
> > military objectives. If you don't know the difference, you need to
> > learn a bit more about the subjects -- assuming your ideological
> > blinders will allow.
>
> I see, it's war if the head of state you're aiming for wears a military
> uniform (Panama), but if he doesn't you have to think of some other excuse
> (Grenada).
> >
> > :Seems to me that the
> > :French were aiming to disable a threat to their operations by sinking the
> > :Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour rather than to spread terror.
> >
> > But you can't do that sort of thing. If you do, you are acting as a
> > terrorist. Due process of law, and all that sort of thing. The
> > French launched a bomb attack on an unarmed civilian vessel while it
> > was in port in a foreign country.
>
> It's not as if they sank a pleasure yacht now, is it? The Rainbow
> *Warrior* was intended to disrupt if not terminate legitimate and legal
> French military activities. The French action was more an act of war than
> it was terrorism, IMO.
>
> How about the Marine barracks in Beiruit? War or terrorism?
>
> Or the incursion into Colombia in CaPD? War or terrorism?
>
> Or the attack on the terrorist camp in PG? War or terrorism?
>
> My point being that the dividing line is very blurry and I suspect has more
> to do with ideological blinkers than anything else. Your side commits
> legitimate acts of war -- your opponents are dastardly terrorists.
That brings to mind a relevant quote.
There are three positions that one might take with regard to
terrorism: (1) We can attribute it to official enemies,
whatever the facts. (2) We can dismiss the entire
discussion of terrorism as ideologically motivated
nonsense, not worthy of attention. (3) We can take the
phenomenon seriously, agree that terrorism warrants concern
and condemnation, investigate it, and let the chips fall
where they may. On rational assumptions, we dismiss the
first and accept the third. The second position is at least
arguable, though in my judgment wrong; I think there is
every reason to take terrorism seriously, and the concept
is as clear as most that enter into political discourse.
But considerations of rationality are not pertinent. The
first and wholly irrational position is the standard one in
the media and the literature of terrorology, overwhelmingly
dominant. The second position is regarded as more or less
tolerable, since it absolves the United States and its
clients from blame apart from their attempts at ideological
manipulation. The third position, in contrast, is utterly
beyond the pale, for when we pursue it, we quickly reach
entirely unacceptable conclusions, discovering, for
example, that Miami and Washington have been among the
major world centers of international terrorism from the
Kennedy period until today, under any definition of
terrorism -- whether that of the U.S. Code, international
conventions, military manuals, or whatever.
-- Noam Chomsky, _Necessary Illusions_, ch. 5
> Look, I don't want to make a big deal over all this, and I'm surprised
> anyone jumped when I poked. Of course, I should have realised that some
> Yanks have a holier-than-thou attitude and would get upset if I dared
> suggest that they could possibly be incorrect. You people can keep Waco to
> yourselves, but I dare say an exploration of Panama and Grenada might prove
> illuminating for many, including myself.
The "holier than thou" syndrome is in part due to the general ignorance of
international perceptions of the US, and indeed, ignorance of the actions
of the US. We never see any serious media treatment of the World Court and
UN General Assembly condemnations of continual violations of international
law by the US. We can easily get the impression that the failure of the UN
to foster greater peace in the world is the resut of the evil obstruction
of Communists.
> However, these sorts of small-scale raids, incursions, attacks and
> operations are the stuff of the techno-thriller, and there may well be some
> relevance to this ng. I've renamed the thread to cater for those who want
> to take some action either way, but still want to follow the Chinese
> connection.
>
> ~ m
> u U Cheers!
> \|
> |> -Peter Mackay
> / \ pete...@ozemail.com.au
> _\ /_
Chris Hawkins
Fred McCall
:In article <AD929DDE9...@slcan1p09.ozemail.com.au>,
:pete...@ozemail.com.au (Peter Mackay) wrote:
:
:> Snip the cascade -- just me and McCall:
:>
:> > :> :> Terrorist is as terrorist does. They're terrorists.
:> > :> :
:> > :> :I see. Panama and Grenada were "wars", were they? What about Waco?
:> > :>
:> > :> Yeah, they were. All the usual stuff that goes with wars; you know,
:> > :> not bombing civilian shit rather than military targets, stuff like
:> > :> that.
:
:
:Hmmm. What were the US bombings of villages in Southeast Asia?
Various. You can't lump everything together like that.
:The
:destruction of "soft targets" (i.e., hospitals, schools, health clinics)
:by the US-backed contras in Nicaragua?
Terrorism.
:The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which
:the US knew of in advance and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
What did they bomb? Tunis seems a hell of a long way away from Israel
for them to be launching strikes against it (because of little details
like the tactical range of their aircraft).
:The Indonesian massacre (supported by US arms and vetoes of UN Security
:Council resolutions) of the population of East Timor?
Various. Again, you can't lump large numbers of actions against
various targets together like this.
:The death squads of
:El Salvador and Guatamala (US-supported governments)?
Terrorism.
:It's important to recognize and denounce terrorism anywhere, by anyone. If
:HAMAS or the IRA kill civilians with car bombs and the like, we rightly
:protest. Of course, what is not obvious from mainstream US media coverage
:is that US foreign policy is largely indifferent to terrorism and human
:rights abuses in general.
However, what IS obvious is that you're not interested in calling
something 'terrorism' unless you can use the letters 'US' in the same
sentence. Frankly, you sackcloth and ashes "I hate my country" types
give me a sharp pain.
Despite your upper-middle-class angst, the US does a lot better in
this regard than most countries. At least we act from principle part
of the time.
:The ultimate criterion is the "national
:interest," the means to achieve it are irrelevant. If the effect of
:terrorism is consistent with US policy, the US will ignore it or even
:support it. That's _realpolitik_.
Yes, it is. Presumably you, personally, go about doing things to
yourself that damage you in the name of principle, do you?
:What is amusing is that those who
:support _realpolitik_ are also the ones most likely to champion the myth
:that the US is the foremost proponent of democracy and human rights.
Calling something a 'myth' doesn't make it one. Claiming two things
must be mutually exclusive doesn't make them so. It merely
demonstrates your inability to think in other than Aristotelean terms
when you arrive at your fallacious conclusions.
:The
:goal of newspeak is doublethink, the ability to hold two diametrically
:opposed and logically inconsistent beliefs simultaneously.
Well, you would know all about that, wouldn't you?
:> How about the Marine barracks in Beiruit? War or terrorism?
War.
:> Or the incursion into Colombia in CaPD? War or terrorism?
Neither.
:> Or the attack on the terrorist camp in PG? War or terrorism?
War.
:> My point being that the dividing line is very blurry and I suspect has more
:> to do with ideological blinkers than anything else. Your side commits
:> legitimate acts of war -- your opponents are dastardly terrorists.
This, of course, is incorrect. You make a strawman assumption, toss
out a few questions that you imply answers to, then make claims like
this. Sorry, but thanks for playing.
:> Look, I don't want to make a big deal over all this, and I'm surprised
:> anyone jumped when I poked. Of course, I should have realised that some
:> Yanks have a holier-than-thou attitude and would get upset if I dared
:> suggest that they could possibly be incorrect. You people can keep Waco to
:> yourselves, but I dare say an exploration of Panama and Grenada might prove
:> illuminating for many, including myself.
Mostly for you, I would suspect.
Just to give you a SLIGHT clue, the British representative in Grenada
requested our intervention. As another clue, I still consider our
actions in Panama to have been egregiously illegal. How the hell can
we kidnap a foreign head of state and charge him with violations of
American law for things he did in his own country?
Sorry to disturb your preconceptions.
:The "holier than thou" syndrome is in part due to the general ignorance of
:international perceptions of the US, and indeed, ignorance of the actions
:of the US.
It's also due to general ignorance on the part of the international
community with regard to the US (and their own general, self-serving
hypocrisy), which leads many of us to disregard a lot of the carping
from foreign nationals.
:We never see any serious media treatment of the World Court and
:UN General Assembly condemnations of continual violations of international
:law by the US.
Perhaps you'd like to list some? If they're 'continual', you ought to
be able to come up with several dozen just off the cuff.
:We can easily get the impression that the failure of the UN
:to foster greater peace in the world is the resut of the evil obstruction
:of Communists.
Non sequiter.
[And Chris? Please buy an editor with a 'cut' function. Leaving in
half a dozen lines of someone else's .sig is generally considered
rather clueless.]
--
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to
live in the real world." -- Mary Shafer, NASA Dryden
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
f...@onramp.net -- I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Joshua W. Burton
> McCall) wrote:
>
> >:The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which the US knew of in advance
> >:and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
> >
> >What did they bomb? Tunis seems a hell of a long way away from
> >Israel for them to be launching strikes against it (because of
> >little details like the tactical range of their aircraft).
PLO headquarters, and it was (for a mere regional superpower) a
logistical tour de force, in its way more impressive than the
Sabena Air hostage rescue at Entebbe, Uganda, in which Netanyahu's
brother lost his life. Extreme tactical range for a modern air
force is effectively unlimited, if one is willing to put enough
tankers in the air per bomber. The cost goes up exponentially
with distance, of course, like one of those trucks-crossing-the-
Sahara problems.
Laws do not persuade |======================================================
merely because they | Joshua W. Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
threaten. -- Seneca |======================================================
Chris Hawkins
>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
---snip---
What an interesting metaphor for a defender of orthodoxy to pick. We
seem to agree that the US has been involved in terrorism, though I'm sure
that we have different assessments of the extent of the involvement. If
American terrorism exists, what we should do about it? You seem to suggest
that criticizing the US government is anti-American and unpatriotic and
that self-flagellating malcontents should just be silent. (I wonder
whether you consider the right wing criticism of government social
programs to be anti-American.) Is it too much to think that such persons
might have some small role in shaping public policy in a democratic
society? Or that the public at large might be interested in learning about
"American terrorism," a term that is currently an unthinkable oxymoron for
most?
>Despite your upper-middle-class angst, the US does a lot better in
>this regard than most countries. At least we act from principle part
>of the time.
Would you be satisfied if your local police acted on principle part of
the time? Perhaps that depends on how large the part is.
>:The ultimate criterion is the "national
>:interest," the means to achieve it are irrelevant. If the effect of
>:terrorism is consistent with US policy, the US will ignore it or even
>:support it. That's _realpolitik_.
>
>Yes, it is. Presumably you, personally, go about doing things to
>yourself that damage you in the name of principle, do you?
A major aim of civilization is to provide an institutional framework in
which principle and personal interest conflict as little as possible.
Thus, breaking the law might be in my personal interest, if I could get
away with it. A society is civilized, IMHO, to the extent that antisocial
actions are ultimately not in the interest of those who can commit them.
When a country is as dominant on the international scene as the US is,
it can get away with violating principle. In this case, one of the few
potential checks on US aggression is the domestic population. I put
"national interest" in quotes because the goals that constitute it are
arguably not shared by the nation, the people of the United States.
Perhaps those who have conceptualized the "national interest" can justify
supporting brutal regimes, overthrowing democratically elected
governments, orchestrating political assassinations, etc. If only a few
citizens know about US sponsorship of atrocities, there is little pressure
to justify it. Is this what "pains" you: the remote prospect that policy
makers might have to justify their actions?
---rest snipped---
Chris Hawkins
Fred McCall
jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W. Burton) wrote:
:> In article <3178e205...@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred
:> McCall) wrote:
:>
:> >:The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which the US knew of in advance
:> >:and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
:> >
:> >What did they bomb?
:
:PLO headquarters,
War, not terrorism.
Fred McCall
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
: What an interesting metaphor for a defender of orthodoxy to pick.
You must have me confused with someone else.
:We
:seem to agree that the US has been involved in terrorism, though I'm sure
:that we have different assessments of the extent of the involvement. If
:American terrorism exists, what we should do about it? You seem to suggest
:that criticizing the US government is anti-American and unpatriotic and
:that self-flagellating malcontents should just be silent.
You must have me confused with someone else. I merely think that a
little BALANCE is a good thing. However, you apparently can't
recognize balance, since anyone who differs from you in the slightest
is considered by you to be whatever self-generated image you are
actually addressing these remarks to.
:(I wonder
:whether you consider the right wing criticism of government social
:programs to be anti-American.)
No more so than criticizing the government for anything else is.
:Is it too much to think that such persons
:might have some small role in shaping public policy in a democratic
:society? Or that the public at large might be interested in learning about
:"American terrorism," a term that is currently an unthinkable oxymoron for
:most?
It would help if your 'learning' were a bit higher on fact and a bit
lower on trying to pin all evil on the United States.
Your entire paragraph seems to be talking to some stereotype that YOU
are carrying around. You need to get over this if you ever expect
anyone to seriously discuss issues with you.
:>Despite your upper-middle-class angst, the US does a lot better in
:>this regard than most countries. At least we act from principle part
:>of the time.
:
: Would you be satisfied if your local police acted on principle part of
:the time? Perhaps that depends on how large the part is.
No, but I WOULD note it if they do better than police everywhere else.
For you, this would seem to be irrelevant.
In point of fact, I don't want my police acting on principle AT ALL.
I want them acting on law.
:>:The ultimate criterion is the "national
:>:interest," the means to achieve it are irrelevant. If the effect of
:>:terrorism is consistent with US policy, the US will ignore it or even
:>:support it. That's _realpolitik_.
:>
:>Yes, it is. Presumably you, personally, go about doing things to
:>yourself that damage you in the name of principle, do you?
:
: A major aim of civilization is to provide an institutional framework in
:which principle and personal interest conflict as little as possible.
Says who?
:Thus, breaking the law might be in my personal interest, if I could get
:away with it. A society is civilized, IMHO, to the extent that antisocial
:actions are ultimately not in the interest of those who can commit them.
Then you must find The Peoples' Republic of China and Singapore to be
imminently civilized nations and places which accord the accused a few
more rights than those locales do to be much less so.
Needless to say, I disagree with your definitions.
: When a country is as dominant on the international scene as the US is,
:it can get away with violating principle. In this case, one of the few
:potential checks on US aggression is the domestic population. I put
:"national interest" in quotes because the goals that constitute it are
:arguably not shared by the nation, the people of the United States.
The preceding is, of course, total nonsense.
:Perhaps those who have conceptualized the "national interest" can justify
:supporting brutal regimes, overthrowing democratically elected
:governments, orchestrating political assassinations, etc. If only a few
:citizens know about US sponsorship of atrocities, there is little pressure
:to justify it. Is this what "pains" you: the remote prospect that policy
:makers might have to justify their actions?
No, what 'pains' me is the number of people like you who misdefine
things like "sponsor" in order to have more things to bash the US
about. Or are you somehow of the opinion that we should both cut off
our noses to spite our faces AND treat other nations as if they are
children that we are somehow responsible for?
Chris Hawkins
In article <4lh2jb$s...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W.
Burton) wrote:
>> In article <3178e205...@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred
>> McCall) wrote:
>>
>> >:The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which the US knew of in advance
>> >:and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
>> >
>> >What did they bomb? Tunis seems a hell of a long way away from
>> >Israel for them to be launching strikes against it (because of
>> >little details like the tactical range of their aircraft).
>
>PLO headquarters, and it was (for a mere regional superpower) a
---rest snipped---
The technical details are fascinating, but the justification and
historical context of the decision to bomb Tunis are more relevant.
The hijacking of the Achille Lauro was in retaliation for
the bombing of Tunis, but the West properly dismissed this
justification for a terrorist act. The bombing of Tunis, in
turn, was in retaliation for a terrorist murder of three
Israelis in Cyprus by a group which, as Israel conceded,
had probable connections to Damascus but none to Tunis,
which was selected as a target rather than Damascus because
it was defenseless; the Reagan administration selected
Libyan cities as a bombing target a few months later in
part for the same reason. The bombing of Tunis, with its
many civilian casualties, was described by Secretary Shultz
as "a legitimate response" to "terrorist attacks," to
general approbation. The terrorist murders in Cyprus were,
in turn, justified by their perpetrators as retaliation for
the Israeli hijackings over the preceding decade. Had this
plea even been heard, it would have been dismissed with
scorn. The term "retaliation" too must be given an
appropriate interpretation, as any casuist would
understand.
-- Noam Chomsky, _Necessary Illusions_, ch. 5
Chris Hawkins
Joshua W. Burton
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) quotes Chomsky:
> The terrorist murders [of three Israelis] in Cyprus were,
> in turn, justified by their perpetrators as retaliation for
> the Israeli hijackings over the preceding decade.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
?!?!?!
Does this mean "hijackings OF Israelis"? If so, then this is a
little bit like the Bugs Bunny skit where Bugs double-takes Elmer
into shooting himself: not even Arabs are entitled to retaliate
for their own atrocities. If it means "hijackings BY Israelis",
I'd like to see some documentation, preferably from someone with
a slightly firmer hold on reality than Prof. Chomsky.
: The stolen Edvard Munch painting, "The Scream", : .---------.
: was finally found, thanks to an alert Internet : / .-. .-. \
: user who recognized it from this .sig file! -> : / | | | | \ HAVE
: Remember this, the next time anybody tells you : \ `-' `-' _/ YOU
: that your stupid .sig is too long. : /\ .--. / | SEEN
: : \ | / / / / ME?
: Joshua W. Burton (847)677-3902 : / | `--' /\ \
................... jbu...@nwu.edu ..............: / /`------' \ \
Chris Hawkins
In article <4lu3kg$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W.
Burton) wrote:
>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) quotes Chomsky:
>
>> The terrorist murders [of three Israelis] in Cyprus were,
>> in turn, justified by their perpetrators as retaliation for
>> the Israeli hijackings over the preceding decade.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>?!?!?!
>
>Does this mean "hijackings OF Israelis"? If so, then this is a
>little bit like the Bugs Bunny skit where Bugs double-takes Elmer
>into shooting himself: not even Arabs are entitled to retaliate
>for their own atrocities. If it means "hijackings BY Israelis",
>I'd like to see some documentation, preferably from someone with
>a slightly firmer hold on reality than Prof. Chomsky.
I would like to hear the details of your assessment of Chomsky as out
of touch with reality. Here is an account of the Israeli actions:
I am reminded specifically of a recent case where a
Palestinian, Na'il Amin Fatayir, was deported from the West
Bank following his release from prison, having served an
18-month sentence for membership in Fatah. He was deported
because his presence here was said to be illegal. Na'il had
not come to Israel of his won free will, however. He was
clearly kidnapped by the Israeli navy on the high seas
outside Israel's territorial waters as he was riding a
boat, the _Hamdallah_, from Lebanon to Cyprus on 1 July
1985.
These extra-territorial arrests are quite common. Several
boats have been intercepted in recent years while
travelling in the Mediterranean, often between Cyprus and
Lebanon. On 6 February 1987, the Israeli navy ordered a
ship, the _Maria R_ sailing under the Honduran flag, to
stop in the middle of its course, and told those on board
to strip, jump in the freezing water, and swim toward the
navy boat. Once there, sacks were placed over their heads,
and they were severely beaten, according to the Egyptian
captain who was later interviewed by a Saudi magazine and
was then quoted in the _Jerusalem Post_ of 8 May. All 58
men were brought to the Israeli shore. The eight Egyptian
crew members were later released, but the 50 Palestinians
are still being held in detention.
Israeli Minister of Defense Yitzhak Rabin was quoted as
saying in the _Wall Street Journal_ of 10 September 1986
that the Israeli authorities were ready to intercept any
ship carrying arms, even in international waters,
asserting: "Some people may call it piracy, but we don't
even hesitate to stop every ship that might carry arms."
-- Joost Hiltermann, _Middle East International_, Oct. 10,
1987
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) quotes Chomsky:
>
>> The terrorist murders [of three Israelis] in Cyprus were,
>> in turn, justified by their perpetrators as retaliation for
>> the Israeli hijackings over the preceding decade.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>?!?!?!
>
>Does this mean "hijackings OF Israelis"? If so, then this is a
>little bit like the Bugs Bunny skit where Bugs double-takes Elmer
>into shooting himself: not even Arabs are entitled to retaliate
>for their own atrocities. If it means "hijackings BY Israelis",
>I'd like to see some documentation, preferably from someone with
>a slightly firmer hold on reality than Prof. Chomsky.
Here is something by Chomsky. I've included his footnotes so that you
may check his sources.
Turning to the historical record, in 1976, according to
Knesset member (General, ret.) Mattityahu Peled, the
Israeli Navy began to capture boats belonging to Lebanese
Muslims, turning them over to Israel's Lebanese Christian
allies, who killed them, in an effort to abort steps toward
conciliation that had been arranged between the PLO and
Israel. Prime Minister Rabin conceded the facts but said
that the boats were captured prior to these arrangements,
while Defense Minister Shimon Peres refused to comment.
After a prisoner exchange in November 1983, a front-page
story in the _Times_ mentioned in its eighteenth paragraph
that 37 of the Arab prisoners, who had been held at the
notorious Ansar prison camp, "had been seized recently by
the Israeli Navy as they tried to make their way from
Cyprus to Tripoli," north of Beirut, an observation that
merited no comment there or elsewhere. [Footnote 68]
In June, 1984, Israel hijacked a ferryboat operating
between Cyprus and Lebanon 5 miles off the Lebanese coast
with a burst of machine gun fire and forced it to Haifam,
where 9 people were removed and held, eight Lebanese and
the ninth Syrian. Five were freed after interrogation and
four held, including one woman and a schoolboy returning
from England for a holiday in Beirut; two others were
released two weeks later while the fate of the others
remains unreported. The matter was considered so
insignificant that one has to search for tiny items in the
back pages even to learn this much about the fate of the
kidnapped passengers. The London _Observer_ suggested a
"political motive": to compel passengers to use the ferry
operating from the Maronite port of Jounieh instead of
Muslim West Beirut or to signal to the Lebanese that they
are "powerless" and must come to terms with Israel. Lebanon
denounced this "act of piracy," which Godfrey Jansen
described as "another item" in Israel's "long list of
international thuggery." "To maintain the maritime
terrorist fiction," he adds, "the Israelis then bombed and
bombarded a small island off Tripoli which was said to be a
base for PLO seaborne operations," a claim that he
dismisses as "absurd." The Lebanese police reported that 15
were killed, 20 wounded and 20 missing, all Lebanese,
fishermen and children at a Sunni boy scout camp which was
the "worst hit" target. [Footnote 69]
In its report on the Israeli "interception" (to
translate from Newspeak: hijacking) of the ferryboat, the
_Times_ observes that prior to the 1982 war, "the Israeli
Navy regularly intercepted ships bound for or leaving the
ports of Tyre and Sidon in the south and searched them for
guerrillas," as usual accepting Israeli claims at face
value; Syrian "interception" of civilian Israeli ships on a
similar pretext might be regarded a bit differently.
Similarly, Israel's hijacking of a Libyan civilian jet on
February 4, 1986 was accepted with equanimity, criticized,
if at all, as an error based on faulty intelligence. On
April 25, 1985, several Palestinians were kidnapped from
civilian boats operating between Lebanon and Cyprus and
sent to secret destinations in Israel, a fact that became
public knowledge (in Israel) when one was interviewed on
Israeli television, leading to an appeal to the High Court
of Justice for information; presumably there are others,
unknown. [Footnote 70]
-- Noam Chomsky, _Pirates and Emperors_, ch. 2, pp. 88-89
Footnotes
68. Chomsky, _Fateful Triangle_, p. 77;
David Shipler, _New York Times_ [_NYT_], Nov. 25, 1983;
_NYT_, Jan. 26, 1984, last paragraph.
69. _NYT_, June 30, July 1, 1984;
_Boston Globe_, July 1, 4, & 12 (1984);
_Middle East Reporter_ (Beirut), June 30, 1984;
_Observer_ (London), July 1, 1984;
Godfrey Jansen, _Middle East International_, July 13, 1984.
70. Thomas Friedman, _NYT_, Feb. 5, 1986;
Norman Kempster, _Los Angeles Times_, Feb. 5, 1986.
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
In article <chawkins-290...@ts35-1.homenet.ohio-state.edu>,
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
---snip---
Oops. Footnote 70 should appear right after the following sentence:
> Similarly, Israel's hijacking of a Libyan civilian jet on
> February 4, 1986 was accepted with equanimity, criticized,
> if at all, as an error based on faulty intelligence.
Footnote 71 should appear at the end of the quote.
> -- Noam Chomsky, _Pirates and Emperors_, ch. 2, pp. 88-89
>
> Footnotes
>
> 68. Chomsky, _Fateful Triangle_, p. 77;
> David Shipler, _New York Times_ [_NYT_], Nov. 25, 1983;
> _NYT_, Jan. 26, 1984, last paragraph.
>
> 69. _NYT_, June 30, July 1, 1984;
> _Boston Globe_, July 1, 4, & 12 (1984);
> _Middle East Reporter_ (Beirut), June 30, 1984;
> _Observer_ (London), July 1, 1984;
> Godfrey Jansen, _Middle East International_, July 13, 1984.
>
> 70. Thomas Friedman, _NYT_, Feb. 5, 1986;
> Norman Kempster, _Los Angeles Times_, Feb. 5, 1986.
71. _News from Within_ (Jerusalem), Nov. 1, 1985.
Chris Hawkins
Chris Hawkins
In article <3182304b....@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred
McCall) wrote:
>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
>
>: What an interesting metaphor for a defender of orthodoxy to pick.
>
>You must have me confused with someone else.
>
>:We
>:seem to agree that the US has been involved in terrorism, though I'm sure
>:that we have different assessments of the extent of the involvement. If
>:American terrorism exists, what we should do about it? You seem to suggest
>:that criticizing the US government is anti-American and unpatriotic and
>:that self-flagellating malcontents should just be silent.
>
>You must have me confused with someone else. I merely think that a
>little BALANCE is a good thing. However, you apparently can't
>recognize balance, since anyone who differs from you in the slightest
>is considered by you to be whatever self-generated image you are
>actually addressing these remarks to.
You omitted the remark of yours to which I was responding:
>Frankly, you sackcloth and ashes "I hate my country" types
>give me a sharp pain.
Based on my criticism of US foreign policy, you accused me of hating my
country. And now you say that *I* am guilty of unfairly categorizing
*you*. Is an "I hate my country" type not "anti-American"?
The Soviet commissars were upset with Andrei Sakharov for his lack of
balance. He criticized Soviet policies and actions, but not American
policies and actions. His rationale was that, as a Soviet citizen, he
had a responsibility to dissent from the inhumane actions of the Soviet
government. I agree with that reasoning, which, if generalized, implies
that American citizens should be most concerned about the inhumane
actions of the US government.
>:(I wonder
>:whether you consider the right wing criticism of government social
>:programs to be anti-American.)
>
>No more so than criticizing the government for anything else is.
My remarks to date have been exactly that -- a criticism of the US
government.
---snip---
>:>Despite your upper-middle-class angst, the US does a lot better in
>:>this regard than most countries. At least we act from principle part
>:>of the time.
>:
>: Would you be satisfied if your local police acted on principle part of
>:the time? Perhaps that depends on how large the part is.
>
>No, but I WOULD note it if they do better than police everywhere else.
>For you, this would seem to be irrelevant.
>
>In point of fact, I don't want my police acting on principle AT ALL.
>I want them acting on law.
Can we agree that the US should abide by international law?
---snip---
>:Thus, breaking the law might be in my personal interest, if I could get
>:away with it. A society is civilized, IMHO, to the extent that antisocial
>:actions are ultimately not in the interest of those who can commit them.
>
>Then you must find The Peoples' Republic of China and Singapore to be
>imminently civilized nations and places which accord the accused a few
>more rights than those locales do to be much less so.
We apparently define "antisocial" differently. You have not categorized
excessive government force as antisocial. I do.
---snip---
>:Perhaps those who have conceptualized the "national interest" can justify
>:supporting brutal regimes, overthrowing democratically elected
>:governments, orchestrating political assassinations, etc. If only a few
>:citizens know about US sponsorship of atrocities, there is little pressure
>:to justify it. Is this what "pains" you: the remote prospect that policy
>:makers might have to justify their actions?
>
>No, what 'pains' me is the number of people like you who misdefine
>things like "sponsor" in order to have more things to bash the US
>about. Or are you somehow of the opinion that we should both cut off
>our noses to spite our faces AND treat other nations as if they are
>children that we are somehow responsible for?
What is your definition of "sponsor"? _Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary_ has as its third definition:
a person or an organization that pays for or plans and
carries out a project or activity.
There is a positive correlation between US aid and government use of
torture. The CIA runs schools that train Third World police and
military in methods of counterinsurgency and torture (e.g., School of
the Americas at Fort Benning, GA). Would cutting off aid to nations
that have death squads that kill, kidnap, and torture their populations
be "cutting off our noses to spite our faces"? Would shutting down
our death squad training schools be a setback in the defense of
freedom? I would be very interested if you care to give an example or
two of how these steps would endanger our national security.
Chris Hawkins
Joshua W. Burton
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
> I would like to hear the details of your assessment of Chomsky
> as out of touch with reality.
No, you wouldn't. What you'd like, and what Prof. Chomsky would
like, is to throw more New_York_Times microfilm at us than anyone
with a life can take the time to look up, while slanting the
summary of this documentary evidence so egregiously that actual
debate becomes impossible. Everyone should personally take the
time, ONCE, to satisfy himself that this is what's going on, but
the thrill of refutation quickly palls thereafter.
> Here is an account of the Israeli actions:
OK, just this once, as a courtesy because you have been polite
in your tone, and because it was my mistake that I failed to check
the header. Had I realized some clown (can't tell who; the
thread's origins have expired from my server) had cross-posted this
to alt.raving.mit.linguists, I'd have avoided intruding.
[Na'il Fatayir, kidnapped from the Hamdallah on 1 July 1985]
Never happened, at least not on that date. That was
the day that Israel was _releasing_ 300 security
prisoners, as part of the deal to secure the release
of the hijacked TWA jet that had been shuttling from
Beirut to Tripoli for the previous week, and on which
a US serviceman was brutally murdered. Your assertion
that Fatayir was a Fatah member, however, completely
refutes the kidnapping charge in any event. Under the
agreement signed between the PLO and the Phalangists on
the former's departure from Lebanon, his presence in
Lebanon became a violation of the cease-fire terms,
and he would therefore have been a prisoner of war.
[50 Palestinians on the Maria_R, captured incoming to Beirut on
6 Feb 1987]
This was the week that Terry Waite, an ordained minister
trying to succor, or at least determine the status of,
other Western hostages in Beirut, was himself kidnapped.
The boat and Egyptian crew were released within hours;
the armed passengers attempting to enter West Beirut in
violation of the ceasefire (which would have required
them to land in Jouniyeh, where the Phalangists would
have interned, deported, or shot them) were subsequently
exchanged for SLA militia.
[Matti Peled, on Israel's role in turning over captured boats to
the Phalangists to be killed, before the Lebanon war]
Peled (a former Knesset member from the far-left Hadash
list) made this charge during the Sabra/Chatilla hearings,
but never provided any supporting evidence. Given the
charged atmosphere in which accusations were flying, I
discount this unless there is a second source.
[Prisoner exchanges in the winter of 1983/4]
The earlier November 1983 release involved 4500 POWs,
of whom the 37 captured enroute to Tripoli in violation
of the terms of evacuation rightly merited only paragraph
18 coverage. The subsequent release of 100 Fatah prisoners
in late January 1984 (67 from terrorist infiltrations on
Israel's northern border, 33 from boats inbound from
Cyprus) was delayed, according to the Times story,
because Arafat tried to avoid embarrassment about recent
Fatah violations of the ceasefire terms by denying that
these were his people at all, despite their protestations
that they were under his orders.
[Interdiction of the Alisur_Blanco, 30 June 1984]
As Chomsky notes (in grotesquely distorted form) the aim
here was political. The Lebanese Christians, under the
terms of the ceasefire, were guaranteeing the permanent
evacuation of the PLA from Lebanon by inspecting boats
coming in and out of Jouniyeh. The Syrian-backed forces
in command of West Beirut were trying to keep an alternative
port of entry open. Israel siezed the ferry as a less
confrontational alternative to intervening on the ground.
The number of Fatah infiltrators detained this way in
the preceding year makes the motivation clear to anyone
who doesn't have an axe to grind. All nine persons detained
were released by 19 July, according to Ha'Aretz of that
date---that this was not newsworthy enough to make the
Times does not mean that their fate was "unreported".
[Shelling a "Sunni boy scout camp" off of Tripoli]
Well, if the Al Taw'hid suicide bombers are boy scouts,
I'm staying away from international jamborees. This was
a training camp, and therefore a legitimate military
target, even if they do start their terrorists young.
(The `scout' casualties came when an ammo dump blew up.)
[Diversion of a Libyan executive jet, 4 Feb 1986]
As you say, this was a faulty-intelligence error. The
plane was believed to have both George Habash and Ahmad
Jibril onboard, enroute to Damascus, but they stayed
over in Tripoli an extra day to give keynote speeches
on the need to respond to American naval maneuvers that
month in the Gulf of Sidra by staging attacks on US soil.
(The text of the speeches is quoted in part in Ha'Aretz
of 6 February.) After a seven-hour search at an Israeli
airbase, the plane was refueled and permitted safe
passage to Damascus, with seven conference attendees
and two crewmembers onboard. A military interdiction,
cleaner, less lethal, and infinitely more legal than any
hijacking.
The short version: blockade runners and armed militias seized
on the high seas are not `hijacking' victims; enemy civilians
detained in such seizures are entitled to their usual rights
under international law, including speedy exchange with civilians
unlawfully detained by their home countries. War criminals like
Eichmann and Sheik Obeid are fair game anywhere in the world, and
luxury jets enroute from major terrorist congresses are subject
to arbitrary interdiction and search. No piracy or hijacking
anywhere in this litany, at least on the Israeli side.
Finally, on a more general tack, I believe that this entire notion
of tit-for-tat scorekeeping is fundamentally misconceived. Israel
did not bomb PLO headquarters in Tunis in order to `retaliate' for
events in Cyprus, or for anything else. They did it to prosecute
a war. Now that Madrid, Oslo I and II, and the PA elections are
behind us, and the war is finally winding down to something close
to the resolution Golda offered in 1967, all of these recriminations
have ceased to be merely irrelevant, and are becoming a genuine
propaganda obstacle to peace. Go bitch about the bombing of Dresden,
or Fremont's illegal land grab in Alta California, if you want to
open old wounds instead of working for a better future.
Followups to alt.test or Serdar Argic, please; my eyes are sore
from English and Hebrew microfiche, and I'm not about to repeat
the effort.
Fairness demands that |===================================================
we obstruct both justice | Joshua W Burton (847)677-3902 jbu...@nwu.edu
and injustice, equally. |===================================================
Fred McCall
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
:In article <4lh2jb$s...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W.
:Burton) wrote:
:
:>> In article <3178e205...@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred
:>> McCall) wrote:
:>>
:>> >:The Israeli bombing of Tunis (which the US knew of in advance
:>> >:and refrained from warning Tunisia, an ally)?
:>> >
:>> >What did they bomb? Tunis seems a hell of a long way away from
:>> >Israel for them to be launching strikes against it (because of
:>> >little details like the tactical range of their aircraft).
:>
:>PLO headquarters, and it was (for a mere regional superpower) a
:
: The technical details are fascinating, but the justification and
:historical context of the decision to bomb Tunis are more relevant.
[Long tirade elided.]
I'm left wondering what universe Mr Chomsky is living in.
Fred McCall
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
:In article <4lu3kg$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu>, jbu...@nwu.edu (Joshua W.
:Burton) wrote:
:
:>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) quotes Chomsky:
:>
:>> The terrorist murders [of three Israelis] in Cyprus were,
:>> in turn, justified by their perpetrators as retaliation for
:>> the Israeli hijackings over the preceding decade.
:> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
:>?!?!?!
:>
:>Does this mean "hijackings OF Israelis"? If so, then this is a
:>little bit like the Bugs Bunny skit where Bugs double-takes Elmer
:>into shooting himself: not even Arabs are entitled to retaliate
:>for their own atrocities. If it means "hijackings BY Israelis",
:>I'd like to see some documentation, preferably from someone with
:>a slightly firmer hold on reality than Prof. Chomsky.
:
:
: I would like to hear the details of your assessment of Chomsky as out
:of touch with reality. Here is an account of the Israeli actions:
[elided]
That seems to explain it. What details are necessary?
Fred McCall
chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
:In article <3182304b....@news.onramp.net>, f...@onramp.net (Fred
:McCall) wrote:
:
:>chaw...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Chris Hawkins) wrote:
:>
:>: What an interesting metaphor for a defender of orthodoxy to pick.
:>
:>You must have me confused with someone else.
:>
:>:We
:>:seem to agree that the US has been involved in terrorism, though I'm sure
:>:that we have different assessments of the extent of the involvement. If
:>:American terrorism exists, what we should do about it? You seem to suggest
:>:that criticizing the US government is anti-American and unpatriotic and
:>:that self-flagellating malcontents should just be silent.
:>
:>You must have me confused with someone else. I merely think that a
:>little BALANCE is a good thing. However, you apparently can't
:>recognize balance, since anyone who differs from you in the slightest
:>is considered by you to be whatever self-generated image you are
:>actually addressing these remarks to.
:
:
:You omitted the remark of yours to which I was responding:
:
: >Frankly, you sackcloth and ashes "I hate my country" types
: >give me a sharp pain.
:
:Based on my criticism of US foreign policy, you accused me of hating my
:country. And now you say that *I* am guilty of unfairly categorizing
:*you*. Is an "I hate my country" type not "anti-American"?
No, based on your rabidly invalid criticism of US foreign policy.
You're criticizing us, in large part, for not acting as world
dictator. Otherwise, your criticism of us because of things others do
simply makes no sense.
And no, they're not the same thing at all.
:
:The Soviet commissars were upset with Andrei Sakharov for his lack of
:balance. He criticized Soviet policies and actions, but not American
:policies and actions. His rationale was that, as a Soviet citizen, he
:had a responsibility to dissent from the inhumane actions of the Soviet
:government. I agree with that reasoning, which, if generalized, implies
:that American citizens should be most concerned about the inhumane
:actions of the US government.
So how does that get you to blaming us for things we didn't do, again?
:
:
:>:(I wonder
:>:whether you consider the right wing criticism of government social
:>:programs to be anti-American.)
:>
:>No more so than criticizing the government for anything else is.
:
:My remarks to date have been exactly that -- a criticism of the US
:government.
This is rather like saying that the remarks of a KKK Grand Dragon are
criticisms of Affirmative Action.
:>:>Despite your upper-middle-class angst, the US does a lot better in
:>:>this regard than most countries. At least we act from principle part
:>:>of the time.
:>:
:>: Would you be satisfied if your local police acted on principle part of
:>:the time? Perhaps that depends on how large the part is.
:>
:>No, but I WOULD note it if they do better than police everywhere else.
:>For you, this would seem to be irrelevant.
:>
:>In point of fact, I don't want my police acting on principle AT ALL.
:>I want them acting on law.
:
:
:Can we agree that the US should abide by international law?
Given that 'international law' consists largely of the assertion that
you can do anything you're big enough to do, sure.
:>:Thus, breaking the law might be in my personal interest, if I could get
:>:away with it. A society is civilized, IMHO, to the extent that antisocial
:>:actions are ultimately not in the interest of those who can commit them.
:>
:>Then you must find The Peoples' Republic of China and Singapore to be
:>imminently civilized nations and places which accord the accused a few
:>more rights than those locales do to be much less so.
:
:We apparently define "antisocial" differently. You have not categorized
:excessive government force as antisocial. I do.
Yes, we apparently do. ONE of us is speaking English. I'm not sure
WHAT you are speaking.
:>:Perhaps those who have conceptualized the "national interest" can justify
:>:supporting brutal regimes, overthrowing democratically elected
:>:governments, orchestrating political assassinations, etc. If only a few
:>:citizens know about US sponsorship of atrocities, there is little pressure
:>:to justify it. Is this what "pains" you: the remote prospect that policy
:>:makers might have to justify their actions?
:>
:>No, what 'pains' me is the number of people like you who misdefine
:>things like "sponsor" in order to have more things to bash the US
:>about. Or are you somehow of the opinion that we should both cut off
:>our noses to spite our faces AND treat other nations as if they are
:>children that we are somehow responsible for?
:
:What is your definition of "sponsor"? _Webster's New Collegiate
:Dictionary_ has as its third definition:
:
: a person or an organization that pays for or plans and
: carries out a project or activity.
That's fine. It's not, however, how you are using the word.
:There is a positive correlation between US aid and government use of
:torture.
There is also a positive correlation between having drunk milk and
becoming a heroin addict.
:The CIA runs schools that train Third World police and
:military in methods of counterinsurgency and torture (e.g., School of
:the Americas at Fort Benning, GA). Would cutting off aid to nations
:that have death squads that kill, kidnap, and torture their populations
:be "cutting off our noses to spite our faces"?
Yes, it probably would, given that in many cases the result would be
something worse that was also anti-American.
:Would shutting down
:our death squad training schools be a setback in the defense of
:freedom?
There are no 'death squad training schools'. This is the sort of
'redefinition' that leads to your invalidating your own position.
:I would be very interested if you care to give an example or
:two of how these steps would endanger our national security.
Satisfied?