All language subtitles for Noam Chomsky - Distorted Morality (2002)

Thanks I just got back from Brazil where they don't have any fire codes,

and if you think is uncomfortable you should see a meeting there.

People packed so tight that there was a good question whetherthe

oxygen level would suffice. Fortunately there wasn't a fire
or it would have been a huge catastrophe.

Well, the title you noticed had a question mark after it and the

reason forthe question mark is that whatever has been happening for

the past several months and is going on now,
and howeveryou evaluate it,

like it, hate it, orwhatever, it's pretty clearthat

it cannot be a war on terror. In fact that's close to a logical
necessity- at least if we accept certain pretty elementary assumptions

and principles, so let me try to make those clear at the outset.

The first principle guideline if you like is that we

aught to, I wll try and I think that we should, bend over backwards

to give the benefit of the doubt to the United States government

whenever its possible. So, that if there is any dispute about howto
interpret something, we wll assume they're right.

The second guideline is that we should take very seriously the

pronouncements ofleadership
especially when they are made wth great

sincerity and emotion.
So for example when George Bush tells us that

he is the most devote Christian since the Apostles,
we should believe

him, take him at his word and we should therefore conclude that he

certainly has memorized, over and over again, in his
Bible reading

classes and in church, the famous definition ofhypocrite
that's given in the gospels.

Namely, the hypocrite is the person who applies to others standards that

he refuses to apply to himself. So if you are not a hypocrite you

assume that if something is right for us then it's right forthem and
ifit is wrong when they do it, it is wrong when we do it.

That is really elementary, and I assume that the President would

agree and all ofhis admirers as well. So those are the principles
that I would like to start wth.

Well, a side comment,
unless we can rise to that minimal level of moral

integrity we should at least stop
talking about things like human rights,

right and wrong and good and evil and all such high afflatus things

because all ourtalk should be dismissed, in fact dismissed wth

complete repugnance unless we can at least
rise to that minimal level.

I think that's obvious and I hope there would
be agreement on that too.

Well wth that much in place,
just that much for background let me

formulate a thesis. The thesis is that we are all total hypocrites on

any issue relating to terrorism. Now, let me clariify the notion 'we'.

By 'we' I mean people like 'us'.
People who have enough high degree

of privilege, of training, resources, access to information for
whom it is pretty easy to find out the truth about things

If we want to. If we decide that that is ourvocation.
And in the case in

question, you don't really have to dig very deep it's all right on the surface.

So when I say 'we', I mean that category. And I definitely mean to

include myselfin 'we' because I have never proposed that our leaders

be subjected to the kinds of punishment that I have recommended for

enemies. So that is hypocrisy. So if there are people who escape it

I really don't knowthem and have not come across them.

It's a very powerful culture; it's hard to escape its grasp.

So that's thesis number one. We are all total hypocrites,
in the sense of the gospels, on the

matter of terrorism. The second thesis is stronger namely that

the first thesis is so obvious that it takes real effort to miss it.

In fact, I should go home right nowbecause it is obvious

Nevertheless, let me continue and say
why I think both theses are correct.

Well to begin wth, what is terrorism?
Got to say something about that.

That is supposed to be a really tough question. Academic seminars

and graduate philosophy programmes and so on - a very vexing and

complex question. However, in accordance wth the guidelines that

I mentioned, I think there is a simple answer, namely we just take
the official US definition of terrorism.

Since we are accepting the pronouncements of our leaders literally,

lets take their definition. In fact that is what I have always done.

I have been writing about terrorism forthe last twenty years or so.

Just accept the official definition. So for example a simple and

important case is in the US army manual
in 1984 which defines terrorism

as the calculated use of violence orthe threat of violence to attain

goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature.

Well that seems simple, appropriate. A particularly good choice
because of the timing - 1984.

1984, you wll recall, was the time that the Reagan administration was

waging a war against terrorism. Particularly what they called

state supported international terrorism "a plague spread by

depraved opponents of civilization itselfin a return to barbarism

and the modern age". I'm quoting George Shultz who was the

administration moderate. The other guideline is that we wll
keep to the moderates, not the extremists.

So that's 1984. Reagan had come into office a couple of years earlier.

His administration had immediately declared that the war against

terrorism would be the focus of US foreign policy and they identified

two regions as the source of this plague by depraved opponents of
civilization itself- Central America and the Middle East.

And there was quite wde agreement on that and so in 1985, for example,

every yearthe associated press has a pole of editors on the most
important story of the year, and in 1985 the wnnerwas Middle East

terrorism. So they agree. Right towards the end of that year, 1985,
Shimon Peres, Israel's Prime Minister, came to Washington and Reagan

and Peres denounced the evil scourge of terrorism, referring to the
Middle East.

Scholarship and experts also agree. There is a huge literature

forthe last 20 years on terrorism, particularly state supported
international terrorism. We don't have time reviewit but

a good illustration which I wll keep to is the December 2001
issue of the journal Current History- good and serious journal,

it's article called 'America at War' includes leading historians,

specialists and experts on terrorism and they identiify the 1980's

as the era of state sponsored terror,
agreeing wth the Reagan administration.

I agree wth that too. I think it was the era of state sponsored

international terrorism. One leading author, Martha Crenshaw

says that in that era the United States adopted a pro-active

stance to deterthe plague. Mostly it's about the Middle East

but Central America is occasionally mentioned. For example US

support for one ortwo authors or co-authors from The Workman's

Institution describe the US Contra War against Nicaragua as a
model for howto fight a war against terrorism.

They say that was a model for US support forthe Northern Alliance

in the current phase of the war against terrorism. The seeds

of contemporary terrorism however are much deeperthough.

The major historian in the group, David Rapoport - the leading

academic specialist on terrorism, editor of
the Journal ofTerrorism and so on.

He points out that it goes back to the origins of modern

terrorism, like Osama bin Laden,
it goes back to the early 1960's

and I am quoting him now, "when Vietcong terror against

the American Goliath kindled the hopes that the Western

heartland was vulnerable". I won't comment on that but,

just as an exercise, you might try to find a historical
analog to that statement somewhere. I'Iljust leave it at that.

Without commenting, if you check through the scholarly literature
you'll find the same story all the time, virtual exceptions.

The world agreed wth the Reaganites too. In 1985, right

after Reagan and Peres had denounced the evil scourge of

terrorism, the General Assembly passed a resolution

condemning terrorism, and in 1987, it passed a much stronger
resolution and a much more explicit one denouncing terrorism

in all its forms and calling on all states to do everything
they can to fight against the plague and everything you like.

It's true that that wasn't unanimous. There was one abstention

namely Honduras and two votes against - the usual two.

They gave their reasons forvoting against the major UN resolution

on international terrorism, namely both states, The United States

and Israel, pointed to the same paragraph as the reason for

their negative vote. It was a paragraph that said that 'nothing

in the present resolution could in any way prejudice the

right to self determination, freedom and independence,
as derived from the United Nations Charter, of people forcibly

derived of that right, particularly peoples under colonial and
racist regimes and foreign occupation, or could deprive

them of the right to obtain support for others in these ends
in accord wth the charterwth the United Nations'.

That was the offending paragraph, and it is easy to understand

why it raised a serious problem forthe United States and Israel.

The African National Congress was identified officially as a

terrorist organization in the United States and South Africa was officially an
ally. But, the phrase 'struggle against colonial

and racist regimes' plainly referred to the struggle of the
ANC against the apartheid regimes. So that's unacceptable.

The phrase foreign occupation, everyone understood referred

to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, then in

its 20th year. Extremely harsh and brutal from the beginning
and continuing only because of decisive US military, economic

and diplomatic support that runs up to the present.
So obviously that was unacceptable.

So therefore it was 153-2 wth one abstention. So it wasn't

totally unanimous. It wasn't reported and it has disappeared

from history. You can check to find out. Incidentally that's

standard practice. When the master says something is wrong its dowr the
memory hole, doesn't get reported and its forgotten.

But it's there. If you want to look you can discover it, I'll
give you the sources if you like.

Well, Reagan at that time, let's recall, he and Peres were

talking about the evil scourge of terrorism in the Middle East,

George Shultz didn't entirely agree. He thought that what he
called the most alarming manifestation of state sponsored

terrorism was frighteningly close to home. Namely it was a
'cancer in our landmass, a cancer right nearby that was

threatening to conquerthe hemisphere wth a revolution
wthout borders'.

A rather interesting propaganda fabrication revealed to be a fraud instantly
but always used repeatedly afterwards, even by

the same journals that explained why it was as total fabrication.

It was just too useful to abandon.
And there is also an interesting, if you think about it the

fabrication had a certain element of truth in it, an important

element of truth. We can come back to that if you like.
Anyhowthis cancer in our land mass was threatening to conquer

everything openly followng Hitler's Mein Kampf and we
plainly had to do something about that.

There is a serious day in the United States called Law Day.

Elsewhere in the world is called May Day. May 1st, a day for

the support of the struggles of the American

workers for an 8 hour day. But in the United States
it's a jingoist holiday called Law Day.

On Law Day 1985, President Reagan declared a

National emergency because the government ofNicaragua
'constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to the

national security and foreign policy of the United States'.
That was renewed annually.

George Schultz informed Congress that 'we must cut the

Nicaraguan cancer out and not by gentle means',

things are too serious forthat and so to quote Schultz,

recall, the adminstration moderate. The 'good cop'.

To quote Schultz he said "Negotiations are a euphemism
for capitulation if the shadow of power is not cast across

the bargaining table". He condemned those who
"advocate utopian legalistic means like outside mediation,

the United Nations, the World Court while ignoring the
power element of the equation". I'll avoid quoting hard-liners.

At that time the United States was exercising the power element

of the equation wth mercenary forces based in Honduras

attacking Nicaragua. They were underthe supervision of

John Negroponte who was just appointed to run the diplomatic

side of the diplomatic component of the current war on
terror as the UN Ambassador.

The military component of the current war on terror is

Donald Rumsfeld who at that time was Ronald Reagan's

special envoy to the Middle East; the other place where
the plague was raging through 1985 in fact.

The United States at that time was also blocking utopian,
legalistic means that were being pursued by the World Court,

the Latin American countries and others, and it continued to block those
means, right until the end, until the final

victory ofits terrorist wars throughout central America.
Well, howwas the war against state sponsored terrorism

waged in those two regions by the people who in fact are
leading the newphase, so pretty close historical

continuity not just those two of course.

Well, just to illustrate, lets pick the peak year,

the worst year, 1985 in the Middle East.

Top story of the year. So who wns the prize forthe
worst acts of terrorism in the Middle East in 1985?

Well I know of three candidates,
maybe you can suggest a different one.

One candidate is a car bombing in Beirut in 1985.
The carwas placed outside a Mosque.

The bomb was timed to go off when people were leaving
to make sure it killed the maximum number of people.

It killed, according to the Washing Post, 80 people.

It wounded over 250, mostly women and girls leaving the mosque.

There was a huge explosion so it blewup the whole street

killing babies in beds and so on and so forth.

The bomb was aimed at a Muslim Sheik who escaped.

It was set offby the CIA in collaboration wth

British Intelligence and Saudi Intelligence and

specifically authorized by William Casey according to Bob Woodwards,

the History of Casey and the CIA. So that is a

clear-cut example of International Terrorism.

Very unambiguous and I think it is one of the

candidates forthe prize forthe peak year of 1985.

Another candidate surely would be the so-called Iron Fist operations

that Shimon Peres Government was carrying out in occupied

southern Lebanon in March of 1985. This is in Southern Lebanon,

which was under military occupation in violation of the

Security Council orderto leave, but wth US authorization.

The Iron Fist operations were targeting what the high command called
'terrorist villagers in Southern Lebanon'.

It included many massacres and atrocities and kidnapping
of people for interrogation and taking them to Israel and so on.

It reached new depths of calculated brutality and arbitrary

murder according to a western diplomat familiarwth the region,

who was observing. There was no pretense of self-defense rather it was
openly undertaken for political ends. It was conceded

it wasn't even argued. So that's a clear case ofinternational
terrorism although here we might say that it is aggression.

I'll call it just international terrorism in line wth the
principle that we bend over backwards to give the United States

the benefit of the doubt. Of course this is a US operation.
Israel does it because they are given arms and aid diplomatic

support by the United States.

So we wll decide to call this just international terrorism

not the much more serious war crime of aggression.

The same incidentally was true of the much worst operations of

1982 when Israel invaded Lebanon and killed maybe twenty thousand or so
people. Again, crucial US military, economic and

diplomatic support. The US had to veto a couple of Security Council
resolutions to keep the slaughter going, provided the arms and

so on for it. So it's a US/Israeli invasion if we are honest.

"The goal was to install a friendly regime in Lebanon and
oust the PLO, which would help persuade the Palestinians

to accept Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza".
That's actually accurate and I have to compliment the

New York Times in saying that on January 24th.

As far as I knowthis is the first time in mainstream US literature

that anyone has dared to say what was absolutely common knowledge

in Israel and in the dissident literature 20 years ago.
I was writing this in 1983 just using Israeli sources but it

couldn't penetrate US commentary. You might check and see.
As far as I know, this was the first break through.

I am not sure the reporter understood what he was saying.

But anyway he did say that - James Bennet January 24th,

prize for James Bennet fortelling the truth after 20years.

And its true, and of course it's a textbook illustration of

international terrorism. This time we have to bend over
backwards pretty farto call it international terrorism because

it is hard to say why this isn't overt aggression - the kind of
action forwhich US and Israeli leaders should be subjected to

Nuremberg trials. Real serious war crimes. But again lets
keep to the guidelines and lets say its only international terrorism.

Well that's the second example. The Iron Fist operations.

Third. The only other example from 1985 that I know of took

place two days before Shimon Peres arrived in Washington to

join Reagan in denouncing the evil scourge of terrorism.

Shortly before that, Peres sent the Israeli airforce to bomb
Tunis killing 75 civilizations, torn to shreds wth smart bombs.

It was all rather accurately and graphically depicted by a

highly respected Israeli reporter in the Hebrewpress in

Israel and cooperated by other sources. The United States

cooperated wth that by wthdrawng the 6th fleet so that they
did not have to inform their ally, Tunisia, that the bombers

were on theirway. Presumably getting refueled on the way.
So that's the third candidate. I don't know of any other

candidates that even come close to being candidates for?

Incidentally, George Schultz, the moderate, immediately afterthe

bombing, he telephoned the Israeli Foreign Ministerto say that

the United States had considerable sympathy forthis operation but
he backed away from open support for massive international terrorism

or maybe aggression when the security council unanimously condemned
the attack as an attack of armed aggression.

The United Stated again abstaining against that.

So those are the top three cases that wn the prize for 1985 to

my knowledge and again I'll assume that these are just

international terrorism so we are not calling for Nuremberg trials.

Just more international terrorism by depraved opponents of
civilizations itself, and examples which are pretty hard to miss

remember because these are the peak stories of the year.
International terrorism in the Middle East there's three

perfect examples. In fact the only three major examples that I know of.

However, they aren't candidates. In fact, they are not even in the running.
They are not competitive.

The examples that are in the running are for example cited in the Current
History issue, to which I referred,

which does discuss 1985 and gives two examples of the
evil scourge of terrorism. Namely the hijacking ofTWA897,

killing one American navy diver
and the hijacking of the Achille Lauro which led to the

killing of Klinghoffer, a crippled American.

Both surely terrorist atrocities.
Those are the two examples that are in the running,

that are memorable, that count for international terrorism.
Well the hijackers forthe TWA plane claim,

correctly in fact, that Israel was regularly high jacking
ships in the international waters in transit between

Lebanon and Cyprus, killing people and kidnapping others,
taking them to Israel, eitherfor interrogation

or simply as hostages, keeping them in jail foryears.
Some people are still in jail wthout charges.

But that doesn't justiify the hijacking on the assumption,
which I accept at least, that violence is not legitimate

in retaliation against even worst atrocities
or as preemption against future atrocities.

Violence is not legitimate in such cases so we can
dismiss those claims though they are in fact correct.

Incidentally, the US-Israeli hijackings, and remember,
if Israel does it we are doing it,

those hijackings are also out of the historical records.

Occasionally you find a reference to them in the

bottom of a column on something or other,
but they are not part of the history of terrorism.

The hijackers of the Achille Lauro claimed that this was
retaliation forthe bombing ofTunis

a couple of days earlier.
Well, we dismiss that wth contempt on the same principle,

namely violence is not justified in retaliation or preemption.

Assuming that we can rise to the minimal, moral,

level that I mentioned earlier- if we are not confirmed

hypocrites in otherwords - then some consequences follow
about other acts of retaliation and preemption, but that's too obvious

to talk about, so I wlljust leave it foryou to think about.
Well that's 1985 - the peak year ofinternational terrorism

in the Middle East.

As a research project, you might see if I have left out
anything that is a competitorforthe prize

that I am not aware of. None are mentioned on the
literature on terrorism.

As I said at the beginning you don't really have to work
very hard to see these things.

You have to work very hard not to see them;
it takes a really good education to miss this.

1985 was of course not the first orthe last act of

international terrorism in the Middle East.
There are many others that are very important.

For example, in 1975, Israel, meaning Israeli pilots
wth US planes and US support,

in December 1975 they bombed a village in Lebanon
killing over 50 people. No pre-text was offered,

but everybody knewwhat the reason was.

At that time the UN security council was meeting to

consider a resolution which was supported by the entire world
wth marginal exceptions, only one crucial exception,

the United States which vetoed the resolution,
calling for a diplomatic settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict,

incorporating the UN 242 and all ofits wording
of the main resolution, security and territorial integrity

and all those nice things on the internationally recognized border.

The offending part of this one was that it also

referred to Palestinian National Rights and that's not acceptable

to the United States. It rejected them then, and it rejects them now,
contrary to a lot of nonsense that you read.

The US vetoed the resolution that continued year afteryear,
and is still going on now, of efforts of diplomatic settlement,

which the US has unilaterally blocked.
Israel does not have a veto at the Security Council

so they reacted to the debate by bombing Lebanon and killing
about 50 people wthout a pretext.

That's not in the annals ofinternational terrorisms either.

The US supported both of them, lots of deaths,

hundreds of thousands of people driven out and so on.
Clinton had to back offhis support forthe 1996 invasion

afterthe Qana massacre, over a hundred people in a UN refugee camp. At
the point he said, can't handle this any more, you better leave.

There was no pretext of self-defense in this case.

This is just outright international terrorism or maybe aggression.

And it continues. So lets go up to the current intifada,

which broke out on September 30th of year 2000.
In the first couple of days there was no fire from Palestinians,

some stone throwng, but Israel was in fact using
US attack helicopters to attack civilian appartment complexes and so on,

killing and wounding dozens of people in the first few days.
The Clinton administration responded to this by,

I'll borrow our President's phrase, by 'enhancing terror'.

You recall President Bush condemned the Palestinians for

enhancing terror last month, so I'll use his phrase in line

wth the guidelines. The Clinton Administration committed

itself to enhancing terror on October 3rd by making a deal
forthe biggest shipment in a decade of military helicopters

to Israel along wth spare parts forthe Apache attack
helicopters that were sent a couple of weeks earlier.

That's enhancing terror. In days right after, these helicopters
were being used to murder and wound civilians, attacking apartment

complexes and so on. The press cooperated by refusing to report this.

Note: Not failing to report it - refusing to report it.
It was specifically brought to the attention of editors and

they simply made it clearthat they were not going to report it.
There is no question about the facts incidentally, but to this

day it has not been reported, except in the margins.
That policy continues, skip to December 2001,

George Bush was condemning the Palestinians for enhancing terror
and he contributed in the conventional ways to enhancing terror,

in crucial ways in fact.

On December 15th the UN Security Council debated a European

initiated resolution, calling on both sides to reduce violence and

calling forthe introduction ofinternational monitors to assist

in monitoring a reduction of violence. That's a very important step.
That was vetoed by the United States. It went to the... who want

to enhance violence It's hard to think of any other interpretation
of this. The press didn't have to bother giving an interpretation

The press didn't have to bother giving and interpretation because it was
barely reported.

It then went to the General Assembly where it wasn't reported

at all and there was an overwhelming vote supporting the same
resolution. This time the United States and Israel were not

entirely isolated in opposition as several Pacific Islands joined in
- Nauru and one ortwo others. So therefore, not the usual

splendid isolation.

I don't recall that that was reported. About 10 days before that

there was another major contribution to enhancing terror.

The fourth Geneva conventions, according to the entire world,

literally, outside of Israel, applied to the occupied territories.

The United States refuses. It doesn't vote against this when it
comes up in the United Nations. It abstains. I presume the reason

is the United States doesn't want to take such an open blatant
stand in violation of fundamental principles ofinternational law,

particularly because of the circumstances underwhich they were enacted.

If you recall the Geneva Conventions were established right after

the 2nd world war in orderto criminalize the acts of the Nazis,

so saying they don't apply is pretty strong statement. However,

outside of the United States and Israel, the whole world agrees.

The international Red Cross, which is the Agency responsible for

applying and interpreting them agrees. In fact, as far as I am aware,
there is no further question about this. Swtzerland, which is the

responsible state, called a meeting of the high contracting parties
forthe Geneva conventions, that is, those like the United States

that are legally obligated by treaty to enforce them.

A high solemn commitment, called a meeting on December

5th in Geneva and the meeting took place and passed a strong

resolution determining that the Geneva conventions do apply
to the Occupied Territories which makes illegaljust about

everything that the United States and Israel do there.
They went through the list - settlements, displacements and

everything that goes on.

The United States boycotted the sessions. They got another

country to boycott them - Australia. According to the
Australian press, under heavy US pressure Australia joined

in boycotting them. If the US boycotts it its like a
negative vote at the Security Council orthe General Assembly.

It doesn't get reported and it's out ofhistory.
But that's another important step to enhancing terror.

All this took place incidentally in the midst of a 21 day truce.

A one sided truce. The Palestinians weren't carrying out any

acts but a couple of dozen Palestinians were killed,
including a dozen children. That was right in the middle of

these efforts to enhance terrortook place. Maybe that's an
unfair interpretation and there is some other motive that I'm

not thinking of, but that's what they look like to me.
You can think about that. In any event International Terrorism

in the Middle East certainly continues and has a long history
and if you look overthe record of course it is mixed and

complicated but I think you wll find that the balance is
pretty much along the lines that I described, in fact the

balance reflects the means of violence available as it usually does.

If you look around at terror, in fact, that's why, in the whole

range of terror, state terror is farworse than individual terror
forthe obvious reason that States have means of violence that

individuals don't have, or groups. And that's what you find if
you look, I think overwhelmingly. It is commonly said that

That's completely false - at least if you accept the official

US definition of terror. If you do that then terror is
overwhelming the weapon of the strong like most otherweapons.

Well that's history but all of this stuffis out ofhistory.
History is what is created by well-educated intellectuals and

it doesn't have to have any resemblance to that thing called
history by naive people and if you check this I think you wll

find this true.

Well that's the Middle East; lets turn to Central America

the other main focus of the plague by depraved opponents of

civilizations itself. Here I wll be briefbecause the core
parts are uncontroversial. At least uncontroversial among

people who have minimal regard for international lawand international
institutions and so on. Actually the size of that

category is very easily estimated. Namely, ask yourselfhow
often what I'm about to say has appeared in the discussions

about the evil plague of terrorism in the past five months.

Huge flood but howmuch has been devoted to some uncontroversial

cases, again uncontroversial if you think the World Court and

Security Council and international lawhave some significance.

Well in 1986, the International Court of Justice condemned the

United States for international terrorism - unlawful use of
force in its war against Nicaragua. Again I am going to keep

to the guidelines, bend over backwards, and allowthis to be
interpreted just as international terrorism, not the war crime

of aggression. So we wll call it international terrorism.
The court ordered the United States to terminate the crimes

and to pay substantial reparations - millions of dollars.

Congress reacted by instantly escalating the war by newfunding

to escalate the war. Nicaragua took the matterto the Security Council,
which debated a resolution calling on all states to observe

international law, mentioning no one but everyone who was meant.
The US vetoed it. Nicaragua then went to the general Assembly

which past similar resolutions in successive years.
The United States and Israel apposed and in one yearthey got

El Salvador.

All of this is out ofhistory. It has to be. It is just inconsistent

wth their preferred image of what history is supposed to be and,

as I say, you can check howmuch, these uncontroversial cases have been
referred to recently and rememberwho were the individuals

responsible. People like Negroponte, Proconsul ofHonduras,

Rumsfeld, special envoy to the Middle East,
and so on, plenty of continuity.

The US, as I said, reacted by escalating the war and forthe
first time giving official orders to its mercenary forces to

attack what are called 'soft targets'. That's what the
Southern Command called them - 'soft targets' meaning

undefended civilian targets like agricultural
cooperatives and so on. That was knowr and it was discussed

in the United States.

It was considered legitimate by the 'Left', so

Michael Kinsley who represents the 'Left' in the main stream debate,

in an interesting article, he was then editor of the New Republic,
in which he said that, we shouldn't be too quick to condemn

State department authorization for attacks on undefended
civilian targets, because we have to apply pragmatic criteria.

We have to carry out cost benefit analysis and see whether,
as he put it, the amount ofblood poured in is compensated

by a good outcome namely democracy.

What we wll determine to be democracy and what that means

you can see by looking at the states next door like

El Salvador and Guatemala which were OK democracies.

And ifit passes ourtest then that's it, OK. So, in otherwords,

international terrorism is fine assuming it meets pragmatic
criteria nowacross the spectrum. Left or Right among 'we',

that is educated and privileged intellectuals, not the
population of course. In Nicaragua the population had an

army to defend it. It was bad enough, ten's of thousands
of people killed, the country practically devastated,

may never recover, but it had an army to defend it.
In El Salvador and Guatemala, that wasn't true, the army

was the State terrorists. The US supported state terrorists. They were the
army. There was no one to defend the population

and in fact the atrocities were farworse. Also they are not

a State so they could not go to the World Court orthe
Security Council to followlegal means, of course wthout any effect,

because 'we', people like us, have determined that the world is
going to be ruled by force not by lawand since we have the power,

as long as we determine that, a state that tries to followa
legitimate means of responding to international terrorism

doesn't having anything to do.

But that's our choice, nobody else's choice. You can't blame

anyone else on that. There was however popular resistance,
not elite resistance, but popular resistance, to the atrocities

there that the US had to resort to an international terrorist
network- an extraordinary international terrorist network.

Rememberthe US is a powerful state its not like Libya.
If Libya wants to carry out terrorist acts they hire Carlos

The Jackal or something

The United States hires terrorist states - we're big guys.

So the terrorist network consisted ofTaiwan, Britain, Israel,
Argentina, at least as long as it was underthe rule of the

neo Nazi generals. When they were unfortunately removed,
they fell out of the system, Saudi Arabian funding.

Quite a substantial international terrorist network,
never been anything like it. In contemporary terms we

might call it an 'Axis of Evil' I suppose.

The outcome, again keeping to the guidelines - we believe

our leaders, was hundred of thousands of people slaughtered

and millions of orphans and refugees. Every conceivable atrocity.

The region devastated. The single uncontroversial case,

Nicaragua, which was the least of them, that alone far surpasses

the crimes of September 11th and the others suffered farworse.
Again we are bending over backwards and giving the US the

benefit of the doubt so we are only calling it international
terrorism organized by depraved opponents of civilization itself.

Well that's the second major area, Central America.

All of this however is off the record too, the

Current History journal, and its typical in this respect,
nothing that I have just referred to is mentioned.

Nor is it in the whole scholarly literature in fact,
except way at the margins. You can check and see.

It just doesn't count. The 80's are described as the
era of state sponsored international terrorism, but they

are not referring to any of these things.

The US was trying to prevent state sponsored international terrorism by
taking pro-active means like the most massive

international terrorist network that's ever been know.

That's very typical of the scholarly literature journalism
and again you can do a check. There has barely been a word

on any of this as the second phase of the war on terrorism
has been declared once again wth pretty much the same people

and every reason to expect some more outcomes.

Well, from all of this an obvious conclusion follows: There is an

operational definition of terrorism, the one that is actually used.

It means terrorthat they carry out against us - that's terrorism,

nothing else passes through the filter.
As far as I knowthat's a

historical universal. I can't find an exception to that,
you might try.

For example the Japanese in China and Manchuria were defending

the population against Chinese terrorist and going to create an

earthy paradise forthem if they could control the terrorists.

The Nazi's in occupied Europe were defending the legitimate
governments likes Vichy and the population from the terrorist

partisans who were supported from abroad, as indeed they were.
They were run from London, Poland and France and so on.

The fact that I say I can't find an exception, you might try,
also as far as I am aware this is virtually universal among

intellectuals, educated folks like us.

Apart from statistical errorthis is the line that they take.

Nowit doesn't look that way in history, but you have to remember

who writes history. That ought to leave you wth a little skepticism.
If you look at actual history not the one that's written I think

you wll find that this is the case and I could even maybe suggest
it as a research topic to some enterprising graduate student

who aspires to a career as a taxi driver.

Just to continue to the present, lets just take the last couple

of months. September 11th was the perfectly clear example of

international terrorism, no controversy about that so we don't
have to waste time on it. What about the reaction? Well it

turns out the reaction is also an uncontroversial case of
international terrorism. Again lets keep to the guidelines

we'Iljust listen to what our leaders say.

So on October 11th President Bush announced to the Afghan people that
we wll keep bombing you until you hand over

people who we suspect of terrorist acts although we refuse

to provide any evidence and we refuse to enter into any

negotiations for extradition and transfer- a clear case of
international terrorism. On October 28th the British counterpart

Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, who is the Chief of the British
Defense staff, took it a step further. Remember, getting rid

of the Taliban Regime was not a war aim, that was an afterthought.

Three weeks afterthe bombing began that was added presumably

so that intellectuals would have something to feel good about

or something, I don't know, anyway three weeks afterthe bombing,
that was added as a newwar aim and Admiral Boyce announced to

the Afghan people accordingly, I think this was the first mention
of this war aim, that "we wll continue bombing you until you

change your leadership".

First, that was all very prominent, page 1 of the New York Times

in both cases. Two, both cases are textbook illustrations of

international terrorism if not aggression, but we are still

bending over backwards, and it's all off the record by usual

convention. We're doing it so it doesn't count. It's only
when they carry out what we officially define as terrorism that it counts.

Well, it's easy to go on, but let me just return to the weak thesis;

there can't be a war against terrorism as terrorism is defined in

official US documents. It's a logical impossibility.
This is a small sample ofillustrations, you can go on easily,

but it's enough to showthat that can't be true. Well that's
the weak thesis. What about the strong thesis that it is all

so entirely obvious that it would be embarrassing to talk about
it because its all right on the surface

nothing hidden about any of this.

Everything that I mention is perfectly well knowr you don't

have to penetrate anything to discover. No obscure sources,
nothing. Just the obvious evidence.

And you can easily add to it. There's a ton ofliterature about
it forthe last 20 years, but that literature also can't be

discussed because it comes out wth the wrong conclusion.
So it's treated the same way terrorism is in our intellectual culture.

Again, choice not a necessity.

So we end up wth a kind of dilemma. If we are not honest,

forget it. If we are honest there's a dilemma.

One possibility is just to acknowledge that we are total hypocrites

and then to at least have the decently to stop talking about

human rights, right and wrong and good and evil and so on and
say we are hypocrites and we have force and

we are going to run the world by force, period.
Lets forget about everything else.

The other option is harderto pursue but it's imperative
unless we would like to contribute to still worst disasters

that are likely to lie ahead.