“Death of Osama bin Laden”: “STATE Terrorism” versus “NGO Terrorism”

[Editorial]

“Justice Has Been Done!” For whose justice?

The Story on “Death of Osama bin Laden” on May 1 is all over the world. Almost every news media outlets on earth carried the story.

President Obama declared the following statement in his carefully prepared first press conference on the night of bin Laden’s death: “Justice has been done!”

Most of the news stories around the world, together with their respective governments’ official announcements, seem very much identical with the ideological and political line of US government.

Particularly most, if not all, Western governments and their mainstream media as a whole, as expected, enthusiastically supported the US position.

Of course, “most staunch pro-US governments such as Japan and South Korea in the East,” together with their conservative mainstream media outlets, also did exactly the same thing as their counterparts in Western world.

There seem not many disagreements in the above-mentioned countries if the death of Osama bin Laden is a good thing or not, since he’s been reportedly known as “the most senior figure who masterminded ruthless international terrorism which has been carried out by a radical Islamic fundamentalist group, called Al Qaeda.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon also charged Al Qaeda for its “crimes” which have “touched most continents, bringing tragedy and loss of life to thousands of men, women and children.”

However, on the contrary, there seem many serious, almost irreconcilable, disagreements and disputes against a Western/US claim, i.e., if he was the root cause of the international terrorism.

For the sake of record, the 4th Media’s official position on the issue of terror in general is as follows: Even if there are so many unanswered questions and serious suspicions about US government’s official positions on the “9.11 terror attacks,” including very suspicious questions about when, where and how bin Laden was really killed or “died many years ago from his kidney failure,” according to a number of global media reports such as Reuters in 2003, any form of terror acts in any parts of the world must be stopped and eventually eradicated once for all.

It means if a terror act is committed, then no matter how and why it was done, that very act of terror against innocents must be condemned.

Is “Justice for America” “Injustice to many in the world”?

However, President Obama’s choice of a word the “justice” in regard to the death of bin Laden seems to pose serious questions and doubts among many in the world what sort of justice he’s been talking about.

First, as many argue, “justice for America” throughout its quincentennial history of conquest could be “injustice to many” around the globe, including tens of millions of conquered Native Americans and enslaved African Blacks.

Thus, many doubt if a great majority population of the world would readily agree with him when he said “justice has been done,” and with those (seemingly mostly white and affluent!) Americans who “cheerfully celebrated the death of bin Laden,” as appeared in American media footages.

Before we go further to argue, first and foremost, it’d be worthwhile to note the following historical facts: Obama’s May 1 statement in 2011 reminds many in the world Bush’s May 1 “variety show” in 2003 when he also made a very similar statement “mission accomplished”[i] on the deck of USS Abraham Lincoln.

It also reminds the world the other identical history: The date of March 19 when USA, Britain, and France began their air and missile attacks against Libya in 2011 also coincides with the date March 19 when Bush declared a war against Iraq in 2003.[ii]

Are those coincidences in US history of conquest purely coincidental or intentional?

It seems any readers who have common sense and reason could find an easy answer from the history of US/Western military interventions, invasions and/or illegal wars.

It’s quite notable histories of colonial powers, no matter where they may come from either West or East (distinctively in the case of Japanese imperialists), are almost identical.

State Terrorism versus NGO Terrorism

Let’s go back to the question why so many challenge President Obama’s choice of a word “justice” for its legality, morality and/or validity.

It seems mostly due to the issue of “state terrorism”[iii] some powerful states, distinctively in the cases of US, Britain, and Israel, have relentlessly inflicted upon mostly weak, defenseless and non-Western populations, particularly in the case of Palestine.

Today there may be two different types of terrorism: One is NGO-sponsored (or individual) terrorism[iv]; the other the STATE-sponsored terrorism.[v]

Noam Chomsky defines state terrorism as “terrorism practiced by states (or governments) and their agents and allies”.

To make the long story short, if Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda terror group and/or similar organizations can be considered as the first category of terrorism, the US/Western military interventions, invasions and/or mostly illegal wars against a number of sovereign nations may belong to the second category of terrorism: i.e., the State-sponsored terrorism.

In many cases, if not most, those NGO-sponsored terrorist groups and their terror acts stem out of indignant angers, deep rages, or outright disrespects from centuries-old enslavements, exploitations, and colonization.

Or, to put it more real and plain, those terror acts often originate from the facts that they are illegally invaded and mercilessly bombed, killed, massacred, destroyed, robbed, exploited, oppressed, and so on, and so on.

However, when those mostly “weak, defenseless and poor third world” nations and their populations are being illegally invaded and mercilessly bombed, robbed, raped, and massacred, there was no such UN Secretary General who dared to condemn those powerful and rich nations who carry out those war crimes and crimes against humanity.

What about those Americans who “jubilantly celebrated at the news of bin Laden’s death”?

Do they ever condemn or even realize their own government’s atrocities and the war crimes and crimes against humanity their own governments have repeatedly committed against sovereign nations in the name of war on terror?

What about those Western allies who enthusiastically supported the American positions on its anti-terror war?

Do they ever challenge “the 21st Century Empire” and condemn its ongoing “heinous crimes around the world,” as they do now against mostly poor, defenseless and non-white populations in the name of anti-terror war?

What about the UN Secretary General who condemns the “NGO-sponsored terrorism,” as he did today against the Al Qaeda group?

But has he ever really been able to condemn and/or punish the “STATE-sponsored terrorism” such as the US-sponsored ongoing Israeli crimes against humanity and ongoing war crimes against Palestine people?

Those powerful and rich nations’ colonial policies, war crimes and crimes against humanity still continue to take place even this very day in the 21st century, as those crimes had taken place in the past without being condemned, stopped, punished, and/or undeterred for century after century.

I believe that’s why so many in the world question and challenge the legality, morality and validity of both former president Bush’s “mission accomplished” statement and president Obama’s “justice has been done” statement.

Aren’t their colonial (and/or imperial) policies, war crimes and crimes against humanity the fundamental root causes of international terrorism wherever it may come from either West or East?

Aren’t their arrogant, deceptive and/or hypocritical policies, strategies and their continued “imperial ambitions” the fundamental root causes of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism?

As long as those fundamental root causes remain in international relations and/or power relations, I wonder, no matter when, where, and how Osama bin Laden was killed or not, the international terrorism may not be easily stopped but instead continued around the world.

In fact, those nations where “imperial ambitions,” propelled by astronomical profits of transnational (mainly US and the Western) military-industrial-media complexes, ever continue to exist would love to have the evermore presence of “faked,” “made-up” and/or literally “insane radical terrorist” groups as their convenient “false flags” for a longtime to come.

Why muted, reserved or even suspicious reactions to the news of bin Laden’s death without readily joining those who “hilariously celebrate the death of bin Laden”?

I think former president Bush, president Obama, US Congress, US mainstream media, those Americans who “hilariously celebrated at the news of bin Laden’s death,” UN Secretary General Ban, and this month’s UN Security Council president French Ambassador Araud who all seemed overjoyed and celebrated the death of bin Laden should question why so many in the world wouldn’t readily join them to celebrate together the news of “bin Laden’s death.”

I believe they all should seriously question why their following words and statements don’t get any genuine senses of logical agreement, moral support and political solidarity from an absolute majority of world’s populations.

I urge they all should genuinely question why their following words, sentences and phrases sound hollow, deceptive, and/or hypocritical to many in the world.

After all, who are the real ”murderers,” on the contrary to the claim US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made in the following statement?

“The top U.S. diplomat vowed to pursue relentlessly the murderers all over the world.and its syndicate of terror will not end with the death of bin Laden. … vowed to continue taking the fight to al-Qaida and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan … ”

After all, who are the real culprits who’ve repeatedly carried out the “heinous terrorist attacks” to those weak, helpless and/or mostly third world nations’ populations”?

[T]he heinous terrorist attacks which took place on Sept. 11, 2001 in New York, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania and the other numerous attacks perpetrated by the network throughout the world.” (This month’s president of the Security Council, French Ambassador Gerard Araud)

After all, who are the real beneficiaries from the continued presence of those “extremist radical terrorists” around third world nations?

“The fight against terrorism, extremism and radicalism is not finished.” (French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe)

Where have they (the past and present UN Secretary Generals) been when those most powerful and rich nations, particularly the US, Britain and Israel have forcibly imposed their colonial policies against the will of sovereign nations, and committed numerous times of war crimes and crimes against humanity around the world over and over again?

Where were you Mr. Secretary General of the United Nations?

Where are you now?

Why have you not done the same thing for the sake of Afganistan, Iraqi, Pakistani, and Libyan people as you do now at the news of bin Laden’s death as in the following statement?

“The death of Osama bin Laden, announced (by U.S. President Barack Obama) last night, is a watershed moment in our common global fight against terrorism,” Ban Ki Moon told reporters at UN Headquarters in New York. “The crimes of Al Qaeda touched most continents, bringing tragedy and loss of life to thousands of men, women and children,” he added. “This is a day to remember the victims and families of victims,” said Ban.

When would you call for the whole world, particularly the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly to commemorate and “remember the victims and families of victims” from the ongoing crimes committed by the above-mentioned “State Terrorism” which has been continuously carried out by those powerful and rich nations?

And when would you be able to mobilize the whole world not only to condemn but also bring real punishments onto those countries, e.g., particularly US and Israel who’ve continued to defy your (including your predecessors’) recommendations, veto all the time the great majority number of UN General Assembly members, and disrespect always the whole conscience of the humanity?

Will you?

Notes


i)        “Mission Accomplished” refers to a banner titled “Mission Accomplished” that was displayed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during a televised address by United States President George W. Bush on May 1, 2003 and the controversy that followed. The speech was not actually titled “Mission Accomplished”. Bush stated at the time that this was the end to major combat operations in Iraq. While this statement did coincide with an end to the conventional phase of the war, Bush’s assertion—and the sign itself—became controversial after guerrilla warfare in Iraq increased during the Iraqi insurgency. The vast majority of casualties, both military and civilian, have occurred since the speech. (From Wikipedia)

ii)        Bush declares war COALITION FORCES (March 19, 2003) U.S. President George W. Bush has announced that war against Iraq has begun. In his address at 0315 GMT Thursday, Bush said: – That every effort would be made to spare the lives of innocent civilians,- But the campaign will be “broad and concerted” and will use “decisive force.”- No outcome but victory will be accepted,- America’s freedom will be defended, and freedom will be brought to others. The following is a full transcript of his address: “My fellow citizens, at this hour American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.” (From Wikipedia)

iii)        The word “terrorism” is politically and emotionally charged, and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”. The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities to delegitimize political or other opponents, and potentially legitimize the state’s own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as “terror” by opponents of the state). Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments. An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual. (From Wikipedia)

iv)        According to Wikipedia.com, “[a]ttempts to legally define “terrorism”, “state-sponsored terrorism”, and “state terrorism” at several United Nations conventions remain without consensus. The Encyclopædia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as “the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective”, and states that “terrorism is not legally defined in all jurisdictions.” The encyclopedia adds that “[e]stablishment terrorism, often called state or state-sponsored terrorism, is employed by governments — or more often by factions within governments — against that government’s citizens, against factions within the government, or against foreign governments or groups.” Scholar Gus Martin describes state terrorism as terrorism “committed by governments and quasi-governmental agencies and personnel against perceived threats”, which can be directed against both domestic and foreign targets. Noam Chomsky defines state terrorism as “terrorism practised by states (or governments) and their agents and allies”. “The original general meaning of terrorism was of terrorism by the state, as reflected in the 1798 supplement of the Dictionnaire of the Académie française, which described terrorism as systeme, regime de la terreur. Similarly, a terrorist in the late 18th century was considered any person “who attempted to further his views by a system of coercive intimidation.” While the most common modern usage of the word terrorism refers to civilian-victimizing political violence by insurgents or conspirators, several scholars make a broader interpretation of the nature of terrorism that encompasses the concepts of state terrorism and state-sponsored terrorism. Michael Stohl argues, “The use of terror tactics is common in international relations and the state has been and remains a more likely employer of terrorism within the international system than insurgents. Stohl clarifies, however, that “[n]ot all acts of state violence are terrorism. It is important to understand that in terrorism the violence threatened or perpetrated, has purposes broader than simple physical harm to a victim. The audience of the act or threat of violence is more important than the immediate victim.” Michael Stohl and George A. Lopez have designated three categories of state terrorism, based on the openness/secrecy with which the alleged terrorist acts are performed, and whether states directly perform the acts, support them, or acquiesce to them.

Leave a Reply