4 ms·

> Sure, they are terrorizing the local population, but lots of governments do that without being labeled terrorists. ...including the US government, let's not

> Sure, they are terrorizing the local population, but lots of governments do that without being labeled terrorists. ...including the US government, let's not forget. Drone strikes aren't "local" to the US, but they are conducted against US citizens in countries that the US is not at war with[0]. Moreover, if any middle eastern country did to the US what the US does in Pakistan, you'd bet the US would call it "terrorism"! The word "terrorism" is inherently subjective; there is no way to define it consistently in a way that doesn't hinge either on race or on political affiliation[1]. I won't defend ISIS, but calling them "terrorists" doesn't mean anything. The word "terrorist" has basically become the government equivalent of playground name-calling. It's a way of saying "we don't agree with the way that that group is using violence, so we're going to use a different word to de-legitimize it"[2] To borrow an example from another thread, look at the way the label "communist" was used during the McCarthy era. Oftentimes it was just used as a general term for "subversive actor", and in fact the targets were actually being accused of completely different ideologies altogether, many of them completely incompatible with Communism! But the literal meaning of the word itself doesn't matter; what it really represented was a rhetorical way to other a group of people considered dangerous. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki [1] Notice that many media outlets were hesitant to label the Boston bombings "terrorism" until after the culprits had been identified (with some even going so far as to say things like, "It's unknown if this was an act of terrorism or not"!) [2] Whether or not they are correct to delegitimize it is a separate issue; the point is simply that the word "terrorist" is itself a political statement.

happyscrappy 12y ago
The Oklahoma City bombing was considered terrorism.
- chom_noamsky 12y ago
  That bombing may also be considered an "inside job". The demolition was due to bombs inside the building. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk - http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport [Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by Brigadier Gen. Bentin K. Partin, USAF (Ret.)] And the meaning of terrorism, as it will always be for lapdogs of the bully with the most power, is violence and intimidation which hurts either them or the bully they toady to. The collective of terrorists is always many powers of ten smaller in operational capability than the power they oppose. If the collective is of proportionate size and capacity, we no longer call them terrorists, although we may still describe their actions as terroristic or supportive of terrorist groups. It's not that hard to figure out; we already know it. Terrorists are the cowardly, evil people who bomb us; but we ourselves never do terrorism. That is how the word has been used, and probably always will be used, even though there will always be objective thinkers who notice semantic hypocrisy or contradiction in definition/usage of the term. People getting the inside luxury benefits of living under empire call the outsiders who use violence and fear "terrorist"; the leaders of the empire absolutely encourage this usage. Self-serving hypocrisy allows many people to actually believe that there is something terribly wrong with those who take terrorist actions, but on the other hand many people also suspect or fully realize that the outsider terrorists aren't "terribly wrong" in the head or the morals; many of the same people who live as imperial insiders would actually feel like, and even be moved to act, as the outsiders do if they themselves were outsiders.
  - greedo 12y ago
    Sad. I didn't know the truthers were now targeting the OKC bombing. Oh well, at least they make it easy to spot when they include 911 in URLs.
    - chom_noamsky 12y ago
      If you feel good being able to "spot" things to categorically dismiss as junk, so be it, (we all take such shortcuts when experience warrants it), although I would caution you to do so carefully, and with some retrospection periodically. Along with fantasy-and-faulty-beliefs about things like faked UFO pictures and dog-whistle-anti-Semitic 9/11 "truth", you may wind up dismissing incontrovertible physical evidence about controlled demolitions along the way. Truthers of the sort as you are dismissing have been around along time. They point out things like... - a single shooter couldn't have put out as many bullets as were evidently fired; the fatal wound couldn't have come from the position of the "single" shooter (both JFK and RFK) - the "apparent" cause of a building's (partial|full) collapse couldn't have done by the supposed cause (both OKC and 9/11) ...and a very large group of people find ways to disbelieve them. The official cause couldn't have actually been the cause, but so many people miss such facts, even when they're stated plainly by someone outside of the lapdog media establishment, or the imperial state/corporate establishment. So you dismiss it because the URL smells like something bad to you, but you are this missing out on actual facts by associating the worst custodians of a general argument ("inside job") with the custodians who do a good, forensic job, such as retired General Ben Partin. Do you even care about the historical footage in the video link of bomb squads removing bombs from the OKC Federal Building? Your beliefs are your mistake and I hope you change your head and your life, in spite of the fact that you will more likely feel greater utility, satisfaction, wealth, and reward in your life if you don't change your beliefs. The empire will reward you for believing its lies, and being a more willing servant.
    - anonbanker 12y ago
      There were people calling it an inside job back in 96. The fact that you started paying attention to "truthers" post-2001 seems to be suggesting that you never knew a criminal conspiracy to commit murder was possible prior to someone on the television telling you to ignore what those people were saying. If you want to ignore that the United States and its public officials regularly commit murder, and then cover up the evidence of a crime, just take a peek through your history books to see how many other countries/empires over the centuries have performed false-flag operations similar to McVeigh's bombing.
tormeh 12y ago
A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. A bombing is not terrorism unless used in the pursuit of political gain.
- chimeracoder 12y ago
  > A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. The definition has shifted, especially after 9/11, but for the sake of discussion let's use the one you've proposed. > A bombing is not terrorism unless used in the pursuit of political gain. The point is that only certain political goals (the ones that the US wants to de-legitimize) can qualify an act of violence as terrorism. If Pakistan were to conduct drone strikes against the US, you'd bet they would be considered "a terrorist state" by the US, even if they never hit a single civilian (which is more than the US can say for its drone strike program[0]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civi...
  - nradov 12y ago
    That's not true at all. Hypothetically if the government of Pakistan were to conduct drone strikes against the US and hit only military targets then the US government would certainly not label that as terrorism. Countries are labeled as state sponsors of terrorism when they — or non-state organizations that they support — use violence for political reasons against international civilian targets. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm

happyscrappy 12y ago

The Oklahoma City bombing was considered terrorism.

chom_noamsky 12y ago
That bombing may also be considered an "inside job". The demolition was due to bombs inside the building. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWwrEEP8EBk - http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport [Bomb Damage Analysis of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building by Brigadier Gen. Bentin K. Partin, USAF (Ret.)] And the meaning of terrorism, as it will always be for lapdogs of the bully with the most power, is violence and intimidation which hurts either them or the bully they toady to. The collective of terrorists is always many powers of ten smaller in operational capability than the power they oppose. If the collective is of proportionate size and capacity, we no longer call them terrorists, although we may still describe their actions as terroristic or supportive of terrorist groups. It's not that hard to figure out; we already know it. Terrorists are the cowardly, evil people who bomb us; but we ourselves never do terrorism. That is how the word has been used, and probably always will be used, even though there will always be objective thinkers who notice semantic hypocrisy or contradiction in definition/usage of the term. People getting the inside luxury benefits of living under empire call the outsiders who use violence and fear "terrorist"; the leaders of the empire absolutely encourage this usage. Self-serving hypocrisy allows many people to actually believe that there is something terribly wrong with those who take terrorist actions, but on the other hand many people also suspect or fully realize that the outsider terrorists aren't "terribly wrong" in the head or the morals; many of the same people who live as imperial insiders would actually feel like, and even be moved to act, as the outsiders do if they themselves were outsiders.
- greedo 12y ago
  Sad. I didn't know the truthers were now targeting the OKC bombing. Oh well, at least they make it easy to spot when they include 911 in URLs.
  - chom_noamsky 12y ago
    If you feel good being able to "spot" things to categorically dismiss as junk, so be it, (we all take such shortcuts when experience warrants it), although I would caution you to do so carefully, and with some retrospection periodically. Along with fantasy-and-faulty-beliefs about things like faked UFO pictures and dog-whistle-anti-Semitic 9/11 "truth", you may wind up dismissing incontrovertible physical evidence about controlled demolitions along the way. Truthers of the sort as you are dismissing have been around along time. They point out things like... - a single shooter couldn't have put out as many bullets as were evidently fired; the fatal wound couldn't have come from the position of the "single" shooter (both JFK and RFK) - the "apparent" cause of a building's (partial|full) collapse couldn't have done by the supposed cause (both OKC and 9/11) ...and a very large group of people find ways to disbelieve them. The official cause couldn't have actually been the cause, but so many people miss such facts, even when they're stated plainly by someone outside of the lapdog media establishment, or the imperial state/corporate establishment. So you dismiss it because the URL smells like something bad to you, but you are this missing out on actual facts by associating the worst custodians of a general argument ("inside job") with the custodians who do a good, forensic job, such as retired General Ben Partin. Do you even care about the historical footage in the video link of bomb squads removing bombs from the OKC Federal Building? Your beliefs are your mistake and I hope you change your head and your life, in spite of the fact that you will more likely feel greater utility, satisfaction, wealth, and reward in your life if you don't change your beliefs. The empire will reward you for believing its lies, and being a more willing servant.
  - anonbanker 12y ago
    There were people calling it an inside job back in 96. The fact that you started paying attention to "truthers" post-2001 seems to be suggesting that you never knew a criminal conspiracy to commit murder was possible prior to someone on the television telling you to ignore what those people were saying. If you want to ignore that the United States and its public officials regularly commit murder, and then cover up the evidence of a crime, just take a peek through your history books to see how many other countries/empires over the centuries have performed false-flag operations similar to McVeigh's bombing.

tormeh 12y ago

A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. A bombing is not terrorism unless used in the pursuit of political gain.

chimeracoder 12y ago
> A terrorist, I seem to remember, is someone whose main political tool is the spread of terror. The definition has shifted, especially after 9/11, but for the sake of discussion let's use the one you've proposed. > A bombing is not terrorism unless used in the pursuit of political gain. The point is that only certain political goals (the ones that the US wants to de-legitimize) can qualify an act of violence as terrorism. If Pakistan were to conduct drone strikes against the US, you'd bet they would be considered "a terrorist state" by the US, even if they never hit a single civilian (which is more than the US can say for its drone strike program[0]). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civilian_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan#Civi...
- nradov 12y ago
  That's not true at all. Hypothetically if the government of Pakistan were to conduct drone strikes against the US and hit only military targets then the US government would certainly not label that as terrorism. Countries are labeled as state sponsors of terrorism when they — or non-state organizations that they support — use violence for political reasons against international civilian targets. http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm