<>
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29948.htm - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29948.htm
The Real Definition of Terrorism
By Glenn Greenwald
December 11, 2011 " http://politics.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/ - http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-releases/2011/alleged-terrorist-indicted-in-new-york-for-the-murder-of-five-american-soldiers - - criminal complaint previously filed under
seal provides the details: �Isa is charged with �providing material support to
a terrorist conspiracy� because he allegedly supported a 2008 attack on a U.S.
military base in Mosul that killed 5 American soldiers. In other words, if the
U.S. invades and occupies your country, and you respond by fighting back
against the invading army � the ultimate definition of a �military, not
civilian target� � then you are a . . . Terrorist.
Here is how the complaint, in the
first paragraph, summarizes the Terrorism charge against �Isa:
Sharif
sayfildin, � together with other, while outside the United States, did
knowingly and intentionally conspire to kill, willfully, deliberately,
maliciously and with premeditation and malic aforethought, one or more
nationals of the United States, to wit: United States military personal, while such
nationals of the United States were outside of United States.
By
�outside of the United States,� the Government means: inside Iraq, �Isa�s
country. The bulk of the complaint details conversations �Isa allegedly had
over the Internet, while he was in Canada, with several Tunisians who
wanted to engage in suicide attacks aimed at American troops in Iraq; he is not
alleged to have organized the Mosul attack but merely to have
provided political and religious encouragement (the network of which he was
allegedly a part also carried out a suicide attack on an Iraqi police station,
though �Isa�s alleged involvement is confined to the attack on the U.S.
military base that killed the 5 soldiers along with several Iraqis, and the
Terrorism indictment is based solely on the deaths of the U.S. soldiers).
In an effort to depict him as a
crazed, Terrorist fanatic, the complaint includes this description of
conversations he had while being monitored:
38.
Electronic surveillance has uncover numerous instance in the time period
between April 2009 and the present where the defendant expressed rage at the American invasion of
Iraq and a desire to take revenge on the United States. For
a. a. a. In a phone
conversation with his mother on October 19, 2009, the defendant stated, �Like if an enemy comes inside
your country mother, there should not be anyone left out, big or small,
everyone has to stand up and fight, woman, man, boy, girls, anyone and everyone,
do you understand?�
b.
In a phone conversation
with his mother on November 9, 2009, the defendant talked about the �infidel enemy� entering a
Muslim country and stated that it is everyone�s responsibility to fight that
enemy. He mentioned Jihad and asked, �Do you know mother that when a Martyr
dies, he would have 7 characteristic. First, he receives forgiveness for all
his sins. Then he gets to see his own seats in Paradise�. Also he gets to have
70 virgins.� The defendant added that his greatest wish was to die a martyr.
Is that not exactly
the mindset that more or less anyone in the world would have: if a foreign
army invades your country and proceeds to brutally occupy it for the next
eight years, then it�s your solemn duty to fight them? Indeed, isn�t
that exactly the mentality that caused some young Americans to enlist after the
9/11 attack and be hailed as heroes: they attacked us on our soil, and so
now I want to fight them?
Yet when it�s the U.S. that is doing
the invading and attacking, then we�re all supposed to look upon this very common
reaction with mockery, horror, and disgust� look at these primitive
religious fanatic Terrorists who have no regard for human life �
because the only healthy, normal, civilized reaction someone should
have to the U.S. invading, occupying, and destroying their country is
gratitude, or at least passive acquiescence. Anything else, by
definition, makes you a Terrorist. That�s because it is an
inherent American right to invade or occupy whomever it wants and only a
Terrorist would resist (to see one vivid (and darkly humorous) expression of
this pathological, imperial entitlement, see this http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/12/iran-displays-downed-drone/ -
It�s one thing to condemn �Isa�s
actions on moral or ethical grounds: one could argue, I suppose, that the
solemn duty of every Iraqi was to respectfully treat the American invaders as
honored (albeit uninvited) guests, or at least to cede to invading American
troops the monopoly on violence. But it�s another thing entirely to label
someone who does choose to fight back as a �Terrorist� and prosecute them as
such under charges that entail life in prison (by contrast: an Israeli
soldier yesterday http://972mag.com/nabi-saleh-palestinian-shot-in-head-with-tear-gas-canister/29317/ - - attacked a civilian home in Gaza and
killed a father and his young son while injuring several other children; acts
like that, or the countless acts of http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html - - deliberate slaughter of civilians by
Americans, must never be deemed Terrorism).
Few things better illustrate the
utter meaninglessness of the word Terrorism than applying it to a citizen of an
invaded country for fighting back against the invading army and aiming at purely
military targets (this is http://www.salon.com/2011/06/22/terrorism_35/singleton/ - - others
who were http://mobile.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/radio/2009/08/04/hafetz/index.html -
This topic is so vital because this
meaningless, definition-free word � Terrorism � drives so many of our political
debates and policies. Virtually every debate in which I ever participate
quickly and prominently includes defenders of government policy invoking the
word as some sort of debate-ending, magical elixir: of course President Obama
has to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process: they�re Terrorists;
of course we have to stay in Afghanistan: we have to stop The Terrorists;
President Obama is not only right to kill people (including civilians) using
drones, but is justified in http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/obama-tries-on-the-cowboy-hat/ - - joking about it , because they�re
Terrorists; of course some people should be held in prison without charges:
they�re Terrorists, etc. etc. It�s a word that simultaneously means
nothing and justifies everything. ------------------------------ That is if you miss it!
------------- LET'S SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ONCE AND FOR ALL...NO MORE LIES!
|