Glenn Greenwald: Iran and the Terrorism game (it's never terrorism when it's us or our allies)

[Karmadillo]

http://www.salon.com/2012/01/12/iran_and_the_terrorism_game/singleton/

Thursday, Jan 12, 2012 6:18 AM 06:08:45 EST
Iran and the Terrorism game
By Glenn Greenwald

(updated below)

In the few venues which yesterday denounced as “Terrorism” the ongoing assassinations of Iranian scientists, there was intense backlash against the invocation of that term. That always happens whenever “Terrorism” is applied to acts likely undertaken by Israel, the U.S. or its allies — rather than its traditional use: violence by Muslims against the U.S. and its allies — because accusing Israel and/or the U.S. of Terrorism remains one of the greatest political taboos (even when the acts in question involve not only assassinations but also explosions which kill numerous victims whose identities could not have been known in advance). But the case of these scientist assassinations particularly highlights how meaningless and manipulated this term is.

The prime argument against calling these scientists killings “Terrorism” is that targeted killings — as opposed to indiscriminate ones — cannot qualify. After Andrew Sullivan wrote a post entitled “The Terrorism We Support” and rhetorically asked: “is not the group or nation responsible for the murder of civilians in another country terrorists?”, and then separately criticized the NYT for failing to describe these killings as Terrorism, numerous readers objected to the use of this term on the ground that a targeted killing cannot be Terrorism. Similarly, after I noted yesterday that Kevin Drum had denounced as “Terrorism” a right-wing blogger’s 2007 suggestion that Iran’s scientists be murdered and asked if he still applies that term to whoever is actually doing it now, he wrote a post (either coincidentally on his own or in response) strongly implying that this is Terrorism; thereafter, commenter after commenter at Mother Jones vehemently disagreed, on the same ground, with Drum’s suggestion that this is Terrorism (many agreed the term did apply). Meanwhile, Jason Pontin, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Technology Review, actually claimed that my use of the term Terrorism to describe these scientist killings is “what turns sober, hardnosed people from the Left” (he’s apparently been elected the spokesman for “sober hardnosed people” turning away from the Left), and then proceeded to insist over and over that these are merely targeted killings, not Terrorism.

Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the U.S. and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It’s a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into U.S. law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that’s by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope.

But to really see what’s going on here, let’s look at how a very recent, very similar assassination plot was discussed. That occurred in October when the U.S. accused Iran’s Quds Forces of recruiting a failed used car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Let’s put to side the intrinsic ridiculousness of the accusation and assume it to be true. That plot did not involve anything remotely approaching indiscriminate killing; it was very specifically targeted at one person: the Saudi Ambassador, a government official of a country which has extreme tensions with Iran. Indeed, the targeted Ambassador is an official in a government that has engaged in all sorts of acts of war and is even linked to an actual Terrorist plot: the 9/11 attacks. As Jonathan Schwarz put it at the time: “The funny thing is, I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the US has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones.”

more...

[Fumesucker]

1. That last sentence..

Ouch..

[sabrina 1]

11. And it's so true. There is so much hypocrisy in our foreign policy

especially when it comes to the WOT.

[DetlefK]

2. I think, "Terrorism" is incitement of fear for political purposes by means of violence.

The assassination of that scientist was clearly not aimed at spreading fear, but at ensuring a desired chain of political/strategic events on a larger scale. Therefore this killing is not terrorism to me.

Assad's troops shooting at funerals to prevent future demonstrations: that's terrorism.

The executions of the mexican drug-cartels to frighten journalists, law-enforcement and populace: that's terrorism.

Killing an abortion doctor: that's terrorism.

Spraying peaceful protesters with pepper-spray, so they won't exercise their right to demonstrate in the future: that's terrorism.

[Fumesucker]

4. Is it your position that other Iranian scientists were not made afraid by the assassination? n/t

[sofa king]

6. I disagree about the fear part.

The assassinations are a very deliberate attempt to spread fear among Iranian nuclear workers.

The target does not appear exceptional at first blush. Just a run-of-the-mill chemist and procurement specialist who got whacked at rush hour.

Now every Iranian nuclear worker out there has to be wondering, "what made that guy so special, and if he's not, does that mean I'm next?"

That kind of fear (and for that matter, assassination) is the exact same kind of terrorism the Bush Administration perpetrated upon its own people with anthrax. (Whether they sent it or not, they used the incident to their own advantage, as if they had, so the question of who committed the crime is not nearly as important as who benefited from it--and there is no doubt about that answer.)

That is terrorism, and so is this.

[leveymg]

7. So, assassination isn't terrorism for you, if the intended fear is only to a particular group?

Then, by that definition if Iran started car-bombing US and Israeli nuclear scientists and officials, that couldn't be categorized as terrorism, either, could it? I can guarantee you that nearly everyone else would be condemn it as such, and some would call it a cause for war.

Yours is a perfect example of how some people can selectively rationalize just about anything, if it suits their purposes.

[DetlefK]

8. Do you have a better definition?

There is an old german quote that loosely translates "War is a succession of politics, but with different means." Terrorism is a new breed of war.

[leveymg]

10. Well, then we have made "real politik" on Iran, but they haven't yet responded in kind.

More of this provocation and terrorism, and they surely will be provoked to respond in kind. Is that what you really want?

By the way you misquote Clausewitz's famous aphorism "On War", which is conventionally English-language translated as ""War is the continuation of policy by other means."

[sabrina 1]

12. I disagree, murder is terror. If that scientist was your father or brother, or if you are the

Iranian wife or daughter of a Scientist, you can bet you have just been terrorized. All violence is terrifying. And our drones and other WMDs which we use with impunity, are the biggest terror instruments in the world today. All of this needs to STOP. Defining words is a distraction from the horrors of the past ten years, no more than that, when you include the half a million dead Iraqi children caused by our support for sanctions. This country has lost its way, or maybe it never was what we thought it was.

But as Maggie Thatcher liked to say 'murder is murder is murder'. Of course, like us, she only meant when other people do it.

[gratuitous]

16. Hmmm, your distinction doesn't yield a difference

Your rationale for the murder of the Iranian physicist was that it is to ensure "a desired chain of political/strategic events on a larger scale." Presumably, those events would be set in motion in an atmosphere devoid of terror or even coercion. And yet, in all the other examples you proffer as terrorism, aren't the actors working to ensure a desired chain of political/strategic events on a larger scale? The only discernible difference is that the victims are more or less sympathetic to the sensibilities of the American people, and I don't think that's the Gold Standard of What's Not Terrorism.

[cthulu2016]

20. You win todays' "State the obvious and brace yourself" award.

What you said is correct. The chain of naysaying you attracted is weird.

Assassinating atomic scientists to slow development of atomic science is like bombing a missle factory to slow missle production.

It is the use of violence to achieve a direct end.

The fact that we (USA) would undoubtedly call this terrorism if it was our scientists seems to have created a bizarre chain of logic where we are outraged that our dishonest standards are not universal and then fight to advance those dishonest standards.

Assassinating a person for the primary purpose of assassinating that person is murder. It may be lawful or unlawful, moral or immoral, but it's murder.

[99th_Monkey]

3. I’d bet Saudi ambassador to US has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed"

Now that is quite a powerful quote.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. Governments use words in political ways to suit them.

Well, I'll be. Thanks, Glenn!

[librechik]

9. IBTFAGPS

In Before The First Anti Greenwald Personal Smear

[whatchamacallit]

13. Greenwald is hated because he wont let our abandoned conscience die n/t

[sad sally]

14. stenographic treatment by journalists

Extreme skepticism oozes from every pore of that photo caption. AP refuses to accept that this scientist was killed; they even refuse to accept that this is an actual photograph of the scientist in question and that the photograph shows him with his son. Instead, AP wants you to know that even these pedestrian assertions are nothing more than unverified “claims” from Iran’s state-controlled media and thus cannot and must not be assumed to be true.
----
Stenographic treatment is a license extended only the most powerful. As Atrios put it yesterday: “It isn’t as if random crazy people on the street are granted ‘they said it so that’s good enough to print’ privileges by our elite newspapers. Powerful connected people are.” The most damaging sin of this stenographic model isn’t laziness — the failure to subject false statements to critical, investigative scrutiny — although that is part of it. The most damaging sin is that it’s propagandistic: it converts official assertions and claims from the most powerful into Truth, even when those assertions and claims are baseless or false. This stenographic model is the primary means by which media outlets turn themselves into eager spokespeople and servants for the most powerful factions: the very opposite of the function they claim, with increasing absurdity, to perform.

[whatchamacallit]

15. I just read the caption again

and you are so right! The wording makes sure to infuse doubt.

[sad sally]

17. Glad you read the picture caption. I didn't add the link (again)

as it was included in this post (plus an earlier one I'd done). For me (aging person that I am) sometimes it takes a second or even a third read to get the message.

[whatchamacallit]

18. I'm with ya

Last edited Fri Jan 13, 2012, 08:15 PM - Edit history (1)

the proof is in this edit

[FarLeftFist]

19. Of course this is terrorism, and EVERY Iranian scientist SHOULD be terrified by this.

Because I'm sure whoever did this isn't looking to just stop there, nor do they probably give a shit about any innocent people that may get harmed while doing so.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Glad you feel that way

what will you feel if the assassins turn out to be us or one of our allies?

[FarLeftFist]

22. I believe it is one of our allies.

[MACARD]

24. I agree it is either the CIA or Mossad either one would more more than happy to do it nt

[FarLeftFist]

25. I'll wait til we know for sure. But I doubt it was one of our enemies that did it.

[malaise]

23. Well well said

Imperial bullying gone mad.
Take a look at the bases around Iran - it is Iran that is being terrorized.

[MACARD]

26. more well said

In my Global Issues class at the college i attend we have gone over this, it is the Extensive amount of US involvement, that drives the people of the middle east to terrorism.

the People of the middle east see us (USA) as no better than the Soviet Union (which the Soviet Union even attacked Afghanistan and we helped arm Al qaeda against them), Nazi Germany or Imperial England, we are their to colonize them and create mock democracies while we drain them dry of their resources.

by the way when are we getting that name change to UISA (United Imperial States of America)?