Harboring Terrorists

Recall one of the leading components of the ‘Bush doctrine' - ‘Those who harbour terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves,’ and must be treated accordingly. However, an examination of the implications of this statement are chillingly close to home. The first problem: The first issue is in defining terrorism. The US Government, taken from US Code and Army manuals, defines it as: ‘the use, or threat, of action which is violent, damaging or disrupting, and is intended to influence the government or intimidate the public and is for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause.’ OK, fair enough. However, it is immediately obvious, even to the casual observer, that there is a significant problem with this definition. The problem is that WE are the worst offenders. When we invaded Afganistan, for the express purpose of deposing the Taliban, we 'used action which is violent (war) to influence the government (Taliban) for the purpose of advancing political and ideological causes'. In short, Terrorism. This example is but one of many, such as Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Haiti, Somalia, Afganistan, Iraq, etc. The list is embarrassingly extensive. In fact, in the preface to Gore Vidal's book 'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace', He lists well over 100 US military offensive actions against soverign nations since WWII (in the last 60 years). All of these actions fall under the Army definition of terrorism. The second problem: The UN General Assembly, passed its strongest condemnation of terrorism in December 1987. The resolution (A/RES/42/159) passed 153 to 2, with Honduras abstaining. The two states that opposed the resolution explained their reasons in the UN debate. They objected to: ‘the right to self-determination, freedom, and independence, as derived from the Charter of the United Nations, of people forcibly deprived of that right..., particularly peoples under colonial and racist regimes and foreign occupation.’ The 2 objections? the US and Israel. It is an exercise to the reader to determine why, but the Palistinian Occupation is a good place to start. Harboring terrorists is the reason given for most of the US military action in the world today. However, as the judgement is applied with universality, a completely different picture begins to emerge. The judgement of the pious has been laid down upon 'terrorists, and those who harbor them'. So, who are the US terrorists? Worse yet, who is it that harbors them? Additional ideas, with additional citations, can be found at http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200501--.pdf