"Treason doth never prosper..."

[Dr. Strangelove]

":what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason. -John Harrington

Which reminds me of this: (Story attributed to St. Augustine by Noam Chomsky)

A captured pirate was brought before Alexander the Great. "How dare you molest the sea?" asked Alexander. "How dare you molest the whole world?" the pirate replied, and continued: "Because I do it with a little ship only, I am called a thief; you, doing it with a great navy, are called an emperor."

I posit that insofar as the first quote is true an amended version substituting "terrorism" for "treason" is true.


The great vocal majority seem incapable of recognizing the very simple moral principal of measuring yourself and your friends according to the same standard by which you measure everyone else.

They seem equally incapable of recognizing the difference between advocating the adoption of such a principle and "hating" the actors you would like to see live by the principle.

I use the word "seem" because I don't believe it's actually the case that they lack these capacities.

I think it's easier and more emotionally satisfying to brand one that advocates the reform of the Soviet Union "Anti-Soviet," or to say of a german citizen who objects to the evils of the nazi regime that they "hate germany."

The cursed mirror so often refuses to flatter.

[Chris Alger]

[ QUOTE ]
"They seem equally incapable of recognizing the difference between advocating the adoption of such a principle and "hating" the actors you would like to see live by the principle."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is certainly true among the very simple but for those with some education or experience in these topics I'd disagree.

Those who support American or Israeli or anyone's terrorism shortly come to realize that they cannot be associated with "fighting terror" because one can't be for and against something at the same time. In some corner of their minds they realize this they are, by definition, supporters of terrorism. Now quite of few of them have no problem with this -- they know they don't harbor any principles higher than tribalism and just want to see certain kinds of people killed.

The rest, however, avoid the degradation of facing the mirror through the slightly less degrading exercise of denying the obvious and raising silly arguments and thin quibbles over sources and proof. (Examples: different people have chided me for citing undisputed facts in the NY Times on the grounds that America's newspaper of record is "obscure" and "anti-Israel"). This is often so transparent that the object of the exercise can't be to actually persuade anyone about the merits of their position. Instead, these efforts are designed to convince others that they themselves believe what they say, no matter how implausible or absurd. They do so because (1) they hope to maintain a public pretense of a clear conscience; and (2) they want to "make noise" to simulate a legitimate dispute to foster the deulsion -- probably the self-delusion -- that there's no consensus about demonstrable reality.

[Zeno]

"Terrorism doth not prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper none dare call it terrorism."


Here's a challenge. Make a list of all the terrorists about the globe at present, whether individual or organized into groups, governments or however you wish to parse them out. Such a list should prove interesting. Perhaps your personnel list could be compared to official lists of government agencies, watchdog groups, or other organizations that create such lists. Perhaps that would provide a basis for an interesting discussion. Then we could grade the list by the most egregious down to the lackluster would be terrorists that are so inept has to be a name only.


By the way, dragging some more history into this, were the pirates that kidnapped Julius Caesar terrorists? Was Julius Caesar a terrorist when he tracked them down and killed them?

Was Caesar a terriost in Gaul? Was Pompey a terrorist? Cicero? Alexander? Mohammed? Mao? Emperor Hirohito?


-Zeno

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorism doth not prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper none dare call it terrorism."


Here's a challenge. Make a list of all the terrorists about the globe at present, whether individual or organized into groups, governments or however you wish to parse them out. Such a list should prove interesting. Perhaps your personnel list could be compared to official lists of government agencies, watchdog groups, or other organizations that create such lists. Perhaps that would provide a basis for an interesting discussion. Then we could grade the list by the most egregious down to the lackluster would be terrorists that are so inept has to be a name only.


By the way, dragging some more history into this, were the pirates that kidnapped Julius Caesar terrorists? Was Julius Caesar a terrorist when he tracked them down and killed them?

Was Caesar a terriost in Gaul? Was Pompey a terrorist? Cicero? Alexander? Mohammed? Mao? Emperor Hirohito?


-Zeno

[/ QUOTE ]

Rather than a list I'll offer the US Department of Defense's definition which seems approximately correct.


"the unlawful (I'm wary of this qualification) use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives" (US Department of Defense)

I'm sure you can better judge whether the actions of those people and groups you listed fit that definition.

One question I struggle with is the relation between the crime of Aggression and Terrorism. It's easy to commit acts of terrorism without committing aggression, but is it possible to commit Aggression without committing Terrorism?

It seems unlikely, if you agree with Robert Jackson, chief American Prosecutor of the Nuremburg Trials, that


To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.


Aggression is held to be more serious, and many of those you listed engaged in it serially. For them at least, arguing over whether they committed acts of terrorism is akin to trying someone for manslaughter after they have already been sentenced to death for the crime of murder.

[Zeno]

Good post, I have one comment. The attention and emphasis on 'terrorism', especially today, focus on war (I note the Robert Jackson quote, a good one by the way) or large and singular violent acts or successions of single acts. I specifically mentioned Mao in my post of a reason. An anniversy went by (Fortieth) almost unnoticed by many, including everyone on this forum. It should not have been. Terrorism comes in many forums and probably in none so insidious or terrible than the following:


Cultural Revolution Link 1


Link 2


Link 3


Terrorism, broadly or narrowly defined, is an integral part of human society and is a perennial part of human history. It is part of the fabric of our civilization, whether we wish to acknowlegde that fact or not.

-Zeno

[Dr. Strangelove]

Thanks for the links; I agree with your post in its entirety.