Infinite Justice
Thursday, September 20th, 2001 03:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
robinturnerSo the planes are flying, the bands are playing, and Operation Infinite Justice is underway (funny, I thought the only person to date who had been credited with infinite justice was God, but I suppose Bush Jr. can stand in for the almighty). People better qualified than I have already commented on the stupidity of bombing a place where everything has already been bombed several times and exploding shells hardly raise an eyebrow. Unless the Americans use nuclear or biological weapons, they are unlikely to impress a country that took on and beat the Soviet Union.
What interests me more is the double standard involved. A while ago, Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, took refuge in Italy. Unlike Bin Laden, the case was pretty clear-cut, since Öcalan was perfectly happy to admit that he was the head of the PKK, and that the PKK had killed a lot of people, including civilians. Turkey requested extradition, the Italian parliament debated granting Öcalan political asylum, and in the end Öcalan wandered off, eventually being arrested somewhere else. This is the kind of thing one expects. What one would not expect would have been for Turkey to threaten to bomb Rome if Öcalan was not handed over within three days.
An objection to this parallel might be that Italy is a peaceful democratic country, while Afghanistan is a state which actively supports terrorism (albeit mainly against its own people), along with such "rogue states" as Iraq, Libya ... and the USA. Hmm.
Terrorism is not easy to define, but is generally regarded as involving violent acts which are designed to spread fear and demoralisation rather than producing a direct military result. Bombing a tank battalion is not terorrism. Bombing a munitions factory is not terrorism. Bombing a city in order to destroy important military facilities is still not terrorism, however objectionable we may find it. Bombing a city in order to pressurise or demoralise your enemy is. The attack on the World Trade Centre is a good example; so was the fire-bombing of Dresden by the British (unless you count the production of china tea-sets as an essential part of the Nazi war-effort). Operation Infinite Justice may turn out to be another example.
Looked at this way, the USA is a terrorist state. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to terrorise the Japanese far more than they were intended to have a military impact. Less directly, the US government has supported terrorist groups in Latin America who made Bin Laden's friends look like a bunch of wet liberals. Do the American people regard rape and mutilation as collateral damage, or have they simply forgotten the Contras?
If George Bush is serious about not drawing a distinciton between terrorists and countries who support terrorism, aren't the planes heading in the wrong direction?
What interests me more is the double standard involved. A while ago, Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK, took refuge in Italy. Unlike Bin Laden, the case was pretty clear-cut, since Öcalan was perfectly happy to admit that he was the head of the PKK, and that the PKK had killed a lot of people, including civilians. Turkey requested extradition, the Italian parliament debated granting Öcalan political asylum, and in the end Öcalan wandered off, eventually being arrested somewhere else. This is the kind of thing one expects. What one would not expect would have been for Turkey to threaten to bomb Rome if Öcalan was not handed over within three days.
An objection to this parallel might be that Italy is a peaceful democratic country, while Afghanistan is a state which actively supports terrorism (albeit mainly against its own people), along with such "rogue states" as Iraq, Libya ... and the USA. Hmm.
Terrorism is not easy to define, but is generally regarded as involving violent acts which are designed to spread fear and demoralisation rather than producing a direct military result. Bombing a tank battalion is not terorrism. Bombing a munitions factory is not terrorism. Bombing a city in order to destroy important military facilities is still not terrorism, however objectionable we may find it. Bombing a city in order to pressurise or demoralise your enemy is. The attack on the World Trade Centre is a good example; so was the fire-bombing of Dresden by the British (unless you count the production of china tea-sets as an essential part of the Nazi war-effort). Operation Infinite Justice may turn out to be another example.
Looked at this way, the USA is a terrorist state. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to terrorise the Japanese far more than they were intended to have a military impact. Less directly, the US government has supported terrorist groups in Latin America who made Bin Laden's friends look like a bunch of wet liberals. Do the American people regard rape and mutilation as collateral damage, or have they simply forgotten the Contras?
If George Bush is serious about not drawing a distinciton between terrorists and countries who support terrorism, aren't the planes heading in the wrong direction?
