Applying the US standard: State sponsors of Terrorism

[justinsb]

Published: Friday, July 08, 2005
Bylined to: Jeremy R. Hammond

Applying the US standard: State sponsors of Terrorism

"What are our global obligations? To give terrorists no support, no sanctuary."
­ president Clinton, speaking before the United Nations on terrorism in 1998

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
­ president Bush, September 11, 2001

Jeremy R. Hammond writes: Ostensibly, the United States is fighting a "war on terrorism", of which Iraq is just "the latest battlefield", where we are "hunting down the terrorists" who "hate freedom" and whose "aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and by exporting terror."

The irony of such talk about remaking the Middle East in one's own image by toppling foreign governments temporarily aside, it may be observed that mention of "terrorists" is often spoken of in the same breath as "insurgents", and the distinction between the two are often blurred or discarded altogether.

Moreover, the standards applied against those the US considers terrorists, terrorist organizations, or state sponsors of terrorism, are instructive, particularly if one is inclined to apply the same standard to the US as it applies elsewhere.

http://www.vheadline.com/readnews.asp?id=40768

[getmeouttahere]

1. Who are we to use Iraq...

as a "staging area" for fighting terrorists??? It has been proven over and over and over again that Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq and it's only become a breeding ground for terrorism because of our presence. If we were truly fighting terrorism, the staging area should be Saudi Arabia, or perhaps Afghanistan.

[justinsb]

2. Or perhaps Michigan...

isn't that where McVeigh was from?

[dmkinsey]

4. Hey now!

Nichols was from Michigan

[justinsb]

5. oops .. lol

but surely, if the US wants a staging area to fight terroists you can find room in that big, ol country of yours? Texas perhaps?

[johannes1984]

3. Applying a policy apt for the 21st century

well-spoken

The fight against terrorism is not merely one of eradicating groups .it is one of spreading a balance of justice and peace around the world .

I do not have to tell you we are failing miserably .Here we are and people are still being slaughtered by the masses .Here we are in the 21st century , the power of ours has never been close to this , and human rights are still a thing of whimsical fortune .

It angers me that any person of decency can call himself a world leader without looking broken because of his inaction .lt angers me that we fight terrorism as we would fight a war against a nation .It angers me that every nation holds it's souvereignity to a standard so high , no one with true power is accountable .But more than this it angers me that there are individuals out there who spread hatred,fear and misery as if it was their joy and life .These people aren't just of one nation or belief , they sit amongst all of them .A fact of life you say calming me down . A fact of life i saddly agree to by nodding .But it should not be a fact of life that they lead or threaten us .


What i felt when reading this :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4641773.stm


i don't want my kids to be in a world where this runs rampant .I don't want this to be known as my age .It is our moral obligation to yell as loud as hard , and as eloquent as we can that they are deadwrong if they fuck up ....and right now they're fucking up in a biiiiig way

[getmeouttahere]

6. Well said...it's amazing how much progress we can make...

in areas like technology, but we can't seem to make any progress in how we interact with each other on this planet

[justinsb]

7. Agreed

I will keep fighting for 'better' here in Canada, and I will continue to fight the US administration, even if the Democrats take it over in 06 and 08 I won't back off a bit. I've noticed in the past (under Clinton for example) that Dems tend to become complacent when a Dem is in office but Clinton did alot of damage as well. The US, imo, needs to fundamentally change the way it interacts with the world.

[getmeouttahere]

8. Don't hold your breath for it, justinsb....

you're right about the dems, after all some of them still support NAFTA and recently voted for CAFTA, not to mention the small minority of DINOs that support the war in Iraq. I'm afraid there are just too many jingoistic types (to put it mildly) for any fundamental change in the way the US interacts with the world. Remember, however, that Clinton was well-liked throughout much of the world and his admin at least made some attempts at true diplomacy.

[justinsb]

9. I understand that

That's what I'm saying, I'm not going to be happy when there's a D in the white house, even if both houses of congress were entirely Democrat, makes no difference to me. I want action, I care about issues. It may be easier to score some wins with the Dems in charge, but a D next to their name does not automatically earn them a thing with me.

[getmeouttahere]

10. Trust me, my friend, we are on the same page...

I think that's why international aid organizations have become so important to me, especially helping children. Or fighting for democracies that BushCo wants to replace with unfettered capitalism, like Venezuela.

www.handsoffvenezuela.org

Ever notice that if it's a socialist country but it is a majority caucasion country, BushCo doesn't try to overthrow the government. But if your country is socialist, and populated with a majority of brown people, watch out. Even if that government was democratically elected.

[justinsb]

11. I'm proud to say

that I signed the handsoffvenezuela petitions about 9 months ago, and still plug them from time to time here and in my other forums (on Canadian and International progressive politics).