Theos-Talk Archives (June 2002 Message tt00157)

Bart: "A current definition of terrorism is military attacks 
specifically directed at non?military personnel during a time when 
there is no state of war. According to this definition, the attack on 
the World Trade Center was terrorism, while the attack on the 
Pentagon was an act of war. 

Very interesting point of view. One thing to consider is that the 
Pentagon was attacked without a prior declaration of war by any 
recognized state, but I am not a scholar of international law. That 
was the basis of much of the outrage against the surprise Japanese 
attack in Hawaii. In that case there was a recognized state which 
had the right to wage war, but no declaration of war which legalized 
the assault.

Morton: "The poor countries often state the view, that terrorism also 
is defined to the issue, when the rich (western or western LIFESTYLE) 
countries continually economically and politically oppress the poor 
countries. It is also called food?terrorism.

If you are referring to living in an oil sheikhdom, working maybe two 
hours a day, paying no taxes, and keeping slaves, I have a hard time 
getting mistu eyed.

Bart: "I guess, according to [Morton], we should allow chattel 
slavery, lack of human rights for women, butchering of those with 
other points of view, torture, chemical and biological weapons. After 
all, it's their culture, and who are we to interfere?

I applaud your values, and yet wonder how easily people could be 
persuaded to accept them when they believe "chattel slavery, lack of 
human rights for women, [and] butchering of those with other points 
of view" are commandments from God which they are not competent to 
ignore. Even if they agree with us that these things are wrong, they 
might be afraid to (in their view) go against God. That seems to be 
one of the core problems. Fear of anticipated supernatural vengeance 
may be at the basis of it.

Morton: "The rich or western countries sort of flood for instance 
Middle Eastern countries with products, which promote a lifestyle, 
which aggressively and effectively undermines most Middle Eastern 
religions and lifestyles.

Does it do that, or does it undermine the efforts of religious 
conservatives to keep unwilling subjects of the same kingdom living 
in the seventh century? If it is the latter, the problem is internal 
and not created but merely brought to light by western influence. 
Nobody is forcing people in Iran to secretly keep satellite dishes in 
their apartments or circulate bootlegged copies of Western movies on 
tape.

Morton: "The situation is, that the dollar ? $ ? is the economically 
leading currency. And because of that, and because of greed, we have 
the present situation in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Somehow I think the Middle East problem is more complex than the $ 
being the world's leading currency, but that may be a very small part 
of it.

Morton: "Instead of that we have a so?called Security Council, which 
in its present clearly biased form, (without any permanent members 
from Middle Eastern countries), never will be able to create anything 
but trouble on matters concerning the Middle East.

There is a flaw in your argument. There are numerous international 
organizations, including the Arab League, which are far more relevant 
to Middle Eastern affairs than the Security Council. You might as 
well point to the Girl Scouts as point to the Security Council. The 
SC did pass resolutions against Iraq which had some force, but as a 
pawn of the US and Britain. The SC resolutions regarding Palestine 
for the most part have no more force than the emails on this list.

Bart: "The Security Council was formed by those countries who enabled 
the Middle East countries to be self?governing, rather than remain 
colonies.

That may be true of the US, which championed independence for those 
countries, but France and Britain were run out of the Middle East at 
the point of a bayonet. It was terrorism by Menachem Begin which 
persuaded the British to high tail it out of Palestine. He was right 
to get rid of the British, but his methods were questionable.

My instincts have been wrong more than usual lately, but I have a 
suspicion things may be getting ready to move forward in tne Middle 
East after proposal of the new Bush initiative. Positive signs are 
Arafat's offer to belatedly accept the Clinton peace plan which he 
rejected two years ago, seemingly positive noises from Israeli 
leaders, even though Bush is calling for an end to their beloved 
settlements, qualified positive statements from the Palestinian 
Authority, and endorsement by Saudi Arabia, which pressured Bush into 
getting back into the problem. We may yet see a day when the people 
of the area can live without fear, prosper, and get on with their 
lives. There are a surprising number of parallels with Yugoslavia: 
an indicted leader, ancient hatreds, hostility between Muslims and 
non Muslims, a Muslim insurgency used as an excuse for war crimes, 
and yet some semblance of peace seems to have come to the Balkans. 
Let us all hope it can happen in Palestine as well. Ordinary people 
there deserve better than they have got thus far.