PDA

View Full Version : Counterterror Conference Sidesteps Issue of Defining Terrorism



ELVIS
02-08-2005, 01:52 PM
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International Editor

February 08, 2005 (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archiv e\200502\FOR20050208a.html)

(CNSNews.com) - An international conference on counterterrorism, hosted by Saudi Arabia, has run up against some Arab participants' reluctance to accept the widely-held Western view that violence against civilians constitutes terrorism, irrespective of the circumstances.

The four-day gathering in Riyadh has also reportedly witnessed heated behind-closed-doors exchanges between U.S. delegates and their counterparts from Iran and Syria -- countries accused by Washington of sponsoring terror.

The conference has brought together hundreds of officials and experts from international organizations and 50 countries, including 16 Arab states. Although the government announced that it had invited all countries that had suffered from terrorism, Israel was not on the invitation list.

Local media reports said that a series of workshops held on Monday focused on ways of fighting terrorism rather than the sensitive issue of how to define it.

"The solution is in trying to [come up with] detailed proposals to counter terrorism, while dismissing things that might stir controversies and which are related to the definition of terrorism," the host country's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, was quoted as saying.

The main controversy in recent attempts to define terrorism has centered on the Arab-Muslim argument that those fighting "foreign occupation" -- usually a reference to Palestinian "militants" and anti-coalition "insurgents" in Iraq - are not terrorists.

According to summarized transcripts made available by the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA), some Arab delegates at the Riyadh conference felt that a distinction should be drawn.

Egyptian delegate Mahmoud Allam, a deputy foreign minister, "emphasized the importance of laying international definitions for terrorism and differentiating it from a legitimate struggle."

Sudan's delegation head, secret service chief Gen. Salah Abdullah Mohammed, "underlined the necessity of differentiating between terrorism as a crime, and the people's right in armed struggle to liberate their land."

Syrian delegate Brig. Ahmed al Houri said the conference should remove "international confusion over the topic of terrorism." He also said the definition of terrorism should include that of "state terrorism" - a routine reference in the Arab world to Israeli security operations.

Even the host government appeared to agree. Islamic Affairs Minister Saleh al-Sheikh was quoted as saying his ministry had condemned suicide bombings as acts of terror, but that those fighting occupation were not terrorists.

Late last year an expert panel on reforming the United Nations proposed a definition for terrorism for the international community:

"Any action ... that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act."

The panel emphasized in its report that "there is nothing in the fact of occupation that justifies the targeting and killing of civilians."

In an address to the Saudi conference, read out on his behalf, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan referred to the need for a comprehensive anti-terror convention, "based on a definition of terrorism that makes clear that any targeting of civilians or non-combatants is wrong."

Annan said that all countries "must make clear that no cause whatsoever justifies the targeting of civilians and non-combatants. For Islamic countries, this is doubly important."

'Terror-Sponsors

The U.S. is represented at the Riyadh conference by a delegation headed by Frances Townsend, the administration's deputy national security advisor for counterterrorism.

In her remarks at the opening session, Townsend quoted directly President Bush's State of the Union assertion that "Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror."

"State sponsors of terrorism are with the terrorists and therefore against all of us," Townsend said, according to a transcript of her comments, also made available by the SPA.

"They are the cowards who hide behind the hateful and murderous surrogates whom they arm, finance, and harbor," she added, urging the delegates to be "unanimous in our strong condemnation of such state sponsorship of terrorism and demand its end."

The proceedings were closed to media, but local newspapers said Iranian delegates had taken issue with the comments, calling the U.S. accusations "baseless" and saying Iran had itself been negatively affected by terrorism. Bush was reportedly accused of using "extremist" language.

The reports said Syrian participants were involved in the verbal clash too. Syria was also singled out by Bush in the State of the Union address.

Before the conference began, Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.) sent a letter to the president urging him not to send Townsend to a conference that would also be attended by three countries - Iran, Syria and Sudan - on the State Department's list of terror-sponsors.

"I believe that U.S. participation in the creation and exchange of effective counterterrorism strategies with known sponsors of terror defies good policy as well as common sense," he said.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said last Friday that U.S. participation in the conference would strengthen counterterrorism cooperation.

It "certainly will not, in any way, lead to looking the other way or condoning or ... in any other way sanctioning or approving what countries who support terrorism do," he said.



:elvis:

Nickdfresh
02-08-2005, 04:33 PM
ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER

By David Brownlow
April 19, 2004
NewsWithViews.com

No rational person would ever agree to leave their family, fly to a country 8,000 miles away, spend a year in cities they never heard of, only to get shot at by people they never met before - unless there was a very compelling reason.

Now that everyone knows THERE WAS NEVER a compelling reason to invade Iraq, those in charge of the criminal enterprise we call the U.S. government have simply made up a whole new pack of lies to cover up the old ones. Just a few:

New Lie #1: The invasion of Iraq will make America a safer place.

New Lie #2: Killing a bunch of Iraqis will make them free.

New Lie #3: The Iraqis are grateful we are killing them.

New Lie #4: Any Iraqi who is not grateful is a terrorist.

New Lie #5: We need to kill all the Iraqi terrorists.

In order for our soldiers to feel good about killing people who NEVER threatened to harm a single one of us (before we invaded their country anyway!), it is important that we first dehumanize anyone who resists our occupation. So it is not by accident that the Bush propagandists have labeled any Iraqi resistance fighters as "terrorists." After all, terrorists are bad, and if they're all terrorists, we can feel good about killing every one of them!

While President Bush admits we have no evidence that ties Iraq to the attacks of 9/11, he gives the almost daily subliminal suggestion that there really was a connection, by referring to the Iraqis as "terrorists." In typical fashion, the American people are following blindly along, sending our sons and daughters off to die under the guise of "defending our freedom." What a tragedy. What a lie!

Many of the Bush stooges in the "conservative" media/Pravda have also begun using the word "terrorist" to describe any Iraqis who resist our occupation. It has gotten so bad it is nearly impossible to stomach the pro-war drivel coming out of Rush, Sean, Michael, et al. It's a sad day in America when we have to turn the dial to Al Franken in order to hear even the tiniest shred of common sense about this war.

The "terrorist" talk can lead to some very twisted logic from otherwise intelligent people. Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, a man who has generally earned "conservative" respect over the years, wrote an absolutely revolting, venomous piece where he called for the complete destruction of Fullaja, a place few of us had ever even heard of until a couple of weeks ago.

After the four Americans were murdered in Fallujah Mr. Farah wrote, "We may need to flatten Fallujah. We may need to destroy it. We may need to grind it, pulverize it and salt the soil, as the Romans did with troublesome enemies." (Rome, now there's a great role model) Read it for yourself. Definitely not "Compassionate Conservative" stuff.

What that gang of hoodlums did to the bodies of the American contractors was disgusting and barbaric. But we invaded their country, for crying out loud! What did we think was going to happen? Did we think an armed convoy driving through a hostile city would get a ticker tape parade?

Now that we have killed several hundred Fallujans in retaliation, let's call it even and agree to stay out of their town. What a mess.

By our definition, there are about 23 million potential "terrorists" left alive in Iraq. Do we really want to get in a fight with every one of them? If not, we better try to figure out what is driving them to want to kill our soldiers.

Could it be that after waiting for over a year to figure out what we are up to, many Iraqis have concluded that our army is just another brutal occupying force, no better than the one we threw out? Or is it that many of them are just genuinely ticked off that gun-toting foreigners are in their country telling them what to do?

Whatever the particular reason the Iraqis have for resisting our occupation, calling them "terrorists" is not going to help us understand why they hate us enough to drag burning American corpses through their streets. Calling them "terrorists" is not going end the killing of our soldiers. Calling them "terrorists" is not going to help us figure out a way to get our troops out of Iraq!

The government propaganda machine tells us the "terrorists" hate us "because we are free, " or they hate us "because of our way of life," or some other such nonsense. Just because someone does not like our way of life, would that drive them to attack an M1 tank armed only with a rifle? Not very likely.

Has it ever occurred to anyone to ask any of them why they hate us? Maybe if we tried actually listening to what these "terrorists" are saying, we might learn that they do not hate us for who we are. They hate us for what we do.

Could it be they hate us for exactly the reasons they have been telling us they hate us? Could they hate us be because we have been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for many decades, and are occupying their lands? Could it be because we, through a variety of methods, have killed an awful lot of their people? Could it be that they have had enough time to study our version of "democracy" and decided they want nothing to do with it?

If we'd do a little more talking and a lot less shooting, we might find out that like most of us, the Iraqi people just want to be left alone.

Thomas Jefferson got it right when he said, "...peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none..."

Whatever goodwill (if any) we may have earned during the first weeks of this war is now long gone. We have definitely overstayed our welcome. All the "terrorists" seem to want now is for us to get the heck out of their country and allow them to work out their future by themselves.

Which sounds like a very reasonable request! So let's give the Iraqi people what they want and get our troops out of there immediately!

© 2004 David Brownlow - All Rights Reserved

http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david24.htm