Distortions
Concepts should be applied universally without fear or favor. And facts shouldn’t be suppressed just because those facts aren’t ideologically convenient.
“It’s disturbing to think that our concepts are applied in a biased and dishonest way and that certain inconvenient facts just can’t enter our consciousness. But we should identify these distortions and eliminate them—these distortions are bad for us, bad for our countries, bad for the West, bad for our victims, and bad for the world.”
There are two extremely kindergarten-level points about Western journalism and Western intellectual culture, namely that (1) concepts should be applied universally without fear or favor and (2) facts shouldn’t be suppressed just because those facts aren’t ideologically convenient.
Regarding (1), you shouldn’t call X “terrorism” when enemies do it and not also call X “terrorism” when the West does it.
Regarding (2), you shouldn’t suppress facts about Western actions just because those facts are ideologically inconvenient.
This is incredibly basic stuff, so it’s striking when you see violations of (1) and (2)—you should obviously criticize any such violations.
There’s an interesting 2002 talk where Noam Chomsky criticizes Western journalism—and Western intellectual culture—for violating the basic principles of (1) and (2). He goes through a bunch of facts and concludes that inconvenient facts have been excluded from consciousness. And he also concludes that the concept of what “terrorism” is has to do with who the agent is—it’s not a principled definition that’s independent of the perpetrator.
It’s disturbing to think that our concepts are applied in a biased and dishonest way and that certain inconvenient facts just can’t enter our consciousness. But we should identify these distortions and eliminate them—these distortions are bad for us, bad for our countries, bad for the West, bad for our victims, and bad for the world.
Regarding the distortions around “terrorism”, you can find details—and citations—in the following excellent 2002 book:
I urge everyone to check out the 2002 book—there’s a lot of information in there about all sorts of things.
And Chomsky sent me his following article that became—in a shortened version—the eighth chapter of Chomsky’s 2003 book Hegemony or Survival:
Everyone should check out the article—keep in mind that the footnotes sometimes refer to the 2003 book’s other chapters. Chomsky concludes the article with the grim comment that it’s “not pleasant to speculate about the likely consequences if concentrated power continues on its present course, protected from the scrutiny that would be second nature if we were to take seriously the legacy of freedom we enjoy”.
I’ll quickly summarize below some key takeaways from the article—I came up with the organizational sections, provided the embedded image, and provided the hyperlinks.
Basic Morality
It’s an elementary moral truism that we should “apply to ourselves the same standards we apply to others, if not more stringent ones”—this truism means that X is wrong for us if X is wrong for them.
A Straightforward Concept
There’s a US Army manual that defines “‘terrorism’ as ‘the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature…through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear’”. And the US Code gives “a more elaborate definition, essentially along the same lines”.
The British government gives the following similar definition: “‘Terrorism is 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.’”
These definitions “seem fairly clear, close enough to ordinary usage, and appropriate when discussing the terrorism of enemies, as all seem to agree”. And these definitions are no vaguer than other definitions—of political terms—that we find unproblematic.
These definitions don’t precisely answer every question—for example, these definitions don’t sharply distinguish between terrorism vs. aggression vs. resistance. But these definitions “seem fairly adequate to the purposes at hand”.
Applying the Concept
We find—if we go with these definitions—that “like most weapons, terror is primarily a weapon of the powerful”. And we also find—if we go with these definitions—that “the US is a leading terrorist state”.
There was a “plague of US-backed state terror” that spread throughout Latin America starting in the early 1960s. And peaked in Central America in the 1980s with the Reagan administration’s contribution.
The 1982 invasion of Lebanon was a “textbook case of international terrorism, at the very least”—the same can be said about the 1993 invasion of Lebanon and the 1996 invasion of Lebanon. The Reagan and Clinton administrations provided “crucial military and diplomatic support” for all of these operations, so all of these operations “add to Washington’s record of state-supported international terrorism”.
The Three Candidates Aren’t Part of the Story
1985 has been recognized—in the journalism and scholarship on terrorism—to be “the peak year of Middle East/Mediterranean terrorism”.
But when it comes to terrorism in this region, the US was actually directed involved in “the three candidates for the prize of most extreme terrorist atrocity of the peak year of 1985”.
First, the US was directly involved in an 8 March 1985 car bombing in Beirut—the bomb “killed 80 people and wounded 250 others”. The bombing was “traced back to the CIA and British intelligence”.
Second, the US was directly involved in the 1 October 1985 bombing of Tunis—that bombing killed 75 people. The US expedited the bombing—Secretary of State George Shultz praised the bombing. The Security Council adopted a 4 October 1985 resolution that condemned the bombing as an “‘act of armed aggression’”, but the US abstained from the vote—take a look at the following:
You can see that the bombing was condemned as aggression. And you can see that the US abstained from the vote.
Third, the US was directly involved in Operation Iron Fist in occupied Lebanon in 1985. A Western diplomat described these atrocities as “reaching new depths of ‘calculated brutality and arbitrary murder’”—there was also media coverage to support the diplomat’s description.
Regarding the three candidates, “all of these atrocities fall within the category of state-supported international terrorism, if not the more severe war crime of aggression”.
But the three candidates implicate the wrong agents, so the three candidates aren’t part of the story—1985 hasn’t been regarded as the peak year because of these events, but instead because of two events not mentioned yet, namely the 14 June 1985 hijacking of TWA 847 and the 7 October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking.
You should read those links you provided. They do not support the assertion you’re trying to make.