-Caveat Lector- Terrorism is only what U.S. deems it to be.
Israel & Sharon can freely do what they want as long as they have the politicians and media under control in the Washington. - And they know how to play the game, unlike Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Never mind that what Ariel Sharon & Israel are now doing, is more or less exactly what Saddam Hussein is accused of, and why George Bush and Tony Blair are determined to kill him for. (This will nicely guarantee that both these men will likely win their next elections. (Not that winning the election matters any more in the U.S.)) The significant difference is that Saddam didn't have U.S. political and economical backing, like Sharon has for his actions. So the actual _effective and operative definition of terrorism_ is: anything that acts to harm US economic interests. - That is how people should read it if they want to know how the "US words" will translate to acts effecting events in the real world. If I've ever witnessed a country practice racist foreign politics, it is the United States of America, right now. I would never have believed to be witnessing a racial ethnic cleansing taking place with US weapons, and with such strong US economic and political backing in the Washington. - And most Americans in Washington, as I read it, are proud of it. The Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat, could easily use the same justifications against Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, that the U.S president George Bush and (his lapdog - the U.K. prime minister) Tony Blair are using to justify the killing and attacks against Iraq's president Saddam Hussein. - Sharon and Saddam aren't really any different when you view them in the light of International law and U.N. resolutions, and crimes against humanity that they've committed. The only difference is the U.S. politics and the U.S. economic interest in the region. This is a fact that we have to live with. It will not change no matter what people do. So, in effect, Sharon has a green light to purify the state of Israel of all the arabs as he likes. - Sure, Blair and Bush may have to bark some to save their faces, and do lots of media control, but they might as well save their faces later by great show of bombing "Saddam the Horrible", and with strong backing from Israel, just in time for their next elections. The Arab leaders actually chose not to use their only effective weapon in this conflict - oil. - It goes against their leader's political and economical interests. Money, politics and power determine history, and the *effective* definitions for political justifications, such as the word "terrorism". It is in this brutal framework of economic interests and political power that human rights activists have to work - how and what they can possibly accomplish, and who they should try to influence to have any hope of being effective at all? http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=14196 10 April 2002 / 27 Muharram 1423 Time for a definition of terms By Abeer Mishkhas, Arab News Staff What does the word 'terror' mean? In recent months it seems that the word has acquired new meanings depending upon whom you speak to. The meanings seem to vary and to encompass a number of mutually exclusive things. What do the words retaliation, civilian casualties and 'peace' - above all 'peace' - mean? What makes someone like George W. Bush and his supporters define the 'war against terror' so differently from the Arab, or even the European, definition? What makes such countries as Denmark and Belgium see Israeli actions on the West Bank as gross violations of human rights while the US calls those same actions self-defense? Sharon says he wants a responsible Palestinian leadership. But do the words 'leadership' and 'responsible' have the same old dictionary meanings? Or is there a new Sharonite meaning which we must adopt and adhere to? In a speech on Monday, Sharon accused the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, of having created a 'regime of terror,' against Israel. Does that sound familiar? What is 'a regime of terror' anyway? Would it include suicide bombers and Israeli tanks destroying homes in Nablus and West Bank? A besieged leader is a terrorist while a prime minister who is demolishing homes and killing innocent civilians is not. Who is the terrorist? What does the word mean? Instead of coming together, the world today seems to be moving in the opposite direction. Nobody seems to agree on simple facts or even on what we used to believe in and accept as established facts. Suddenly Sharon, Bush, Blair and company have a certain way of putting things into words. On the other side of the globe most of the world is boiling with anger, frustration and despair. They too have their own definitions of what the words 'terrorist' 'peace' and 'justice' mean. How can it be just and fair to ask the world to attack Iraq because it is violating international laws while Israel makes it a habit to ignore UN resolutions? A teenage girl, a mother, a child of six, a desperate suicide bomber, a politician or a church-bell ringer? How can all these people be terrorists, according to the US definition? And what about that other infamous expression: 'collateral damage'? What does human life mean? What is it worth? If it is not the same in the US and Palestine, then we must agree that we have a basic misunderstanding which ultimately breaks the world into small pieces. And in this chaotic world, neither the US nor any other country has the right to decide what is right or wrong. If it is right for the US to kill Afghan civilians in its battle against terrorism and if Sharon can kill children and stop ambulances from collecting the wounded and the dead on the West Bank, then it is certainly just as right for a Palestinian suicide bomber to kill as many civilians as he can. After all, the suicide bomber is fighting in his way what he would define as terrorism! Until the world agrees on what is called what, things will remain the same, people will be reduced to numbers in news bulletins and games for power will erode more of what is left of basic human rights and values. If this state of confusion is what the world's only superpower wants, then surely Colin Powell should save both his time and his breath. No matter what he says, there is already the deepest possible gulf between what is right and what is merely politically expedient. The Americans want the Arab to stop donations to the Palestinian families, because this is an endorsement of terrorism. What is the difference between the families of Palestinian bombers and those of McVeigh and the UnaBomber? By ignoring and refusing to see the other side of the conflict, the US cannot reasonably be surprised at the depth and increase of anti-American feeling in the region. [EMAIL PROTECTED] <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
