Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Abbas Beydoun: Exactly that happened some days ago in the war in Lebanon... what Israel has done was considered to be self-defence and legal war but what Hezbollah has done was considered to be terrorism. Killing hundreds of civilians and children and destroying a country was considered to be legal war, but on the other hand, kidnapping two soldiers and killing 8 Israeli soldiers - which is of course very bad thing- was considered to be attack. Nobody asked why that is the case just because Israel is a state and Hezbollah is an illegal militia. Of course, what Hezbollah has done is extremely condemned, but I wonder why we forget when Israel kidnaps ministers, assassinates and kills civilians and destroys the whole country. I also wonder why we make differences when use force is used by a state or by militias... one description should be found for both of them.

by Abbas Beydoun

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Alvaro Restrepo: I think this is one of the most persuasive questions. It is a fact that the powerful can talk about preventive wars or democratical security or friendly fire and that they use all these abhorrent words, and I believe that those powerful countries that use strategies of selfdefense are also terrorists. For me terrorism is the power of using arms and the possibility to subordinate other people by the fear of death. And I think that all human beings are rulers of the life of others and we are all able to take possesion of the life of other human beings and we are able to destroy it. All these forms are in my opinion terrorism. They are all forms of violence. There are forms of legitimate reaction concerning an oppression and there are extreme forms of reactions because the violence or the oppression have been also extremely. Many times the reaction to what you get is proportional. In my opinion that’s why people react violently to terrorism. They react with a violence of blood. Thus I think that there is a double moral when we talk about selfdefense and about other terrorists that also use their legitimate right of selfdefense.

by Alvaro Restrepo

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Ana Lucy Bengochea:

by Ana Lucy Bengochea

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Andries Botha: Answertext will be available soon.

by Andries Botha

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Angaangaq Lyberth: Everyone wants to be the right one. Lo and behold, without any exceptions everyone wants to be better than the other. Self-defense and terrorism is in fact the same. No matter how you look at it the end result is always the same. Someone loses. It does not matter who, but someone will lose. So what responsibility do you and I have in eliminating that force we use on one another? How can I defend myself from oppression? How can the oppressor be made aware of being oppressing others? Until we eliminate those you and I we will have a hard time to be equal. And you and I here, we need to be equal. We are equal. It does not matter where we come from. It does not matter who we are. It does not matter what’s happening. You and I we are equal. So you and I we’re responsible for determine all these like self-defense and terrorism, both do not belong amongst us. Both will be eliminated from within us. Peace inevitably will arrive within us and without us. Thank you.

by Angaangaq Lyberth

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anthony Arnove: This is an excellent question and a very timely one, Israel. The term self-defense is routinely used to refer to the right of states. But, at the same time, I think the problem is slightly more nuanced in that the actions of certain states can be termed terrorism, not just the actions of, as the question asks, the weak. So, for example, if a state is an enemy to the United States, states such as Iran or states such as Syria, the term terrorism will be used by the media, by politicians, by the punditry to refer to their actions. So, the concept of state terrorism is permissible as long as it is restricted to our enemies. But, on the fundamental thrust of the question, it is absolutely correct that the right of self-defense has invoked a tremendous hypocrisy and that the term terrorism is used with even greater hypocrisy in the world today. So, for example, the United States, which invades Iraq illegally and unjustly to achieve its imperial objectives in Iraq and beyond that in the Middle East and in the world is acting in self defense and yet, the people of Iraq who are resisting occupation, resisting foreign intervention into their lives and very violent form intervention are considered terrorists for exercising their legitimate right of self defense. And the question of the right of self defense also was – the hypocrisy of how that’s used was also recently exposed with the Israelian invasion of Lebanon, where the right of self defense is systematically denied to the people of Lebanon, while it was repeatedly invoked by the defenders of the war in regard to Israel’s right to protect itself from foreign attack. The issue really couldn’t be more important to interrogate.

by Anthony Arnove

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anuradha Koirala: Force is always used between two powerful leaders; one is strong, the other one is weak. So the weaker one is always – it is always – what is the word – phenomenon that the weaker sex are always dominated so that is why the weaker sex is called terrorism. And if a stronger force uses to defend themselves then they call it self defense. This is the problem. There are so many examples in the world that they themselves call themselves human rights activists and human right followers, but you can see that they are violating the human rights by calling themselves self defense.

by Anuradha Koirala

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Anuradha Mittal: That’s an excellent question. But, yes, it is true that when the powerful use force it is called self-defense and when the weak use it, it is called terrorism because the powerful have the power and the ability to frame it the way they want it as the Bush administration has done that their acts in Afghanistan, that their acts in Iraq are not called colonization, they are not called aggression, they are not called terrorism, but they are called the right to self-defense. We saw it in the case of Israeli aggression in Lebanon that it was really about the right to self-defense where it was really collective punishment against the people of Lebanon because they have the power to be able to frame it the way they want to. But I think we have to also remember ANC was once called a terrorist organization because the powerful, the apartheid regime, had the ability to call Nelson Mandela a terrorist; and we have to take away that power of framing. We have to shift the terms of the debate in this one and seek their powers so we can actually call that all acts of violence whether conducted by states, whether conducted by the empire called United States of America, that they are still basically nothing but acts of terrorism and they are being committed right now in Iraq, in Afghanistan, around the world where the rich countries are selling their weapons and allowing people to be able to kill each other.

by Anuradha Mittal

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Ashok Gangadean: This question, I think, is symptomatic of the question of language and the language of dominance. And the culture of dominance because again, in the ego-centric politics the stronger, so to speak, the one that has more force by certain measure of force, will always alienate the other and the weaker. And so the language of dominance will arrogate to itself words in terms like "self-defense" versus "terrorism," imputing to the other that we use force as terrorists, while arrogating to one self, a prejudice, value-charged terms. And this has always been the pattern. And this is not just only in the question of force, but it is across the boards in all aspects of culture. We would say we have the truth and the other is false or alienate or heathen or the delusional or whatever. We judge the other by our own prejudice standards. So I think that’s really what’s interesting in this question, and brings out into mind, can we enter into a form of discourse that’s based upon dialogue and deep dialogue. An equality between self and other, where we don’t inherently put a higher article privileging of oneself over the other, and all of our language and attitudes and dispositions to what the other followed from that. And I think that is something that we need to look at critically and begin to redress it in terms of moving into a culture of dialogue and equality and mutuality and collaboration and mutual respect. Which is the culture of sustainability and the culture of future and of global citizenship.

by Ashok Gangadean

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Audrey Kitagawa: This is only the use of language and so we have to study how not only we use language, but governments use language, institutions use language to help to shape consciousness in ways that will create either the feeling of loyalty or the feeling of aggression towards the other. Language is very powerful in that it actually creates the other in our minds and it begins the process by which we ultimately dehumanize the other and can do horrible things to the other because we have stripped them of their human face and qualities. So we have to see how the creation of this language as a tool of propaganda is very important so that we can guard against these emotionally explosive languaging that helps us to demonize the other. So it's just a matter of languaging that we use to justify our behaviors on whichever side of the fence we may be on. But regardless of the language that may be utilize, each person has responsibility to ask him- or herself is this appropriate, is this proper, is this right, what is happening here, of which the use of language is manifesting a form of dehumanization for which we must guard against. When I was traveling through the marketplaces of Thailand, I saw banners that said Bush the Great Satan. The president of Iran has indicated the U.S. is a great Satan. The U.S., on the other hand, has characterized three countries as comprising the axis of evil, and so we have to see how language is used to create the other.

by Audrey Kitagawa

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Benjamin Fahrer: It’s a very important question about the powerful, and really who is the terrorist? We must look at who is using the term terrorism? Is it those that we labeled as terrorists? Or is it those that are defending themselves from what they call terrorism? I’ve never heard terrorism so much in my life than after 9/11, but not from those who cause such an act, but those who responded. And their response has not been one of self defense. When the powerful are using force, it is not necessarily self-defense. It is an offense, and we know this, they label it as being offensive. It is pretty clear in our world what’s going on, because they even those that they’re doing this, they’re manipulating. But they’re been so blatant about it now at this point that we need to really step-up and hold them accountable for what they saying, and what they’re doing. A self defense? The launching an offensive? If you’re on a basketball court and you have your hoop, your goal. Or on the soccer field and you have your goal, when the ball crosses this court you are in defense. You are defending the goal. When you’re going after the goal, when you’re going after the oil, you’re on the offensive side of the field. That can be a terror to the defensive team. When the offensive comes in so strong and on the basketball court you have five players, on the soccer field you have so many players, on a football field you have so many players and there is rules to the game of how many players you can have when you come into the offensive with way more than what is there of defense. That can be a very onslaught. That can put terror in the hearts of those defending their goal, those defending their land, defending their rights. So, we must first ask who is the true terrorists.

by Benjamin Fahrer

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Benson Venegas: This is a very interesting question. Terrorism shouldn't be a justification. No conflict around the world were resolve with terrorism. None of the terrorism group that was began in the 1970s have fulfill their goals where initial motives are [inaudible]. So, terrorism shouldn't be a way to solve our problems or conflicts. But on the other hand, when the poor people lift up their voice, it's now being called terrorism. And the reason why they call it terrorism, is because they’re weak, and it's more convenient to call it terrorism; then the general public will not feel pity for them. So, what I'm trying to say here, I'm trying to make a difference of the oppression and the domination that certain societies suffer, and that force them to really find solutions, maybe non-peaceful solutions, and there is where we really need to have, open a dialogue that can bring people together and resolve conflicts. So terrorism shouldn’t be a justification, but we shouldn't call terrorism ways in what people are trying to really lift their voice to have a better life and to create a better situation and to have more social justice in their societies.

by Benson Venegas

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Bianca Jagger: Answertext will be available soon.

by Bianca Jagger

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Bill Joy: Terrorism is truly a terrible thing. Terrorism is about doing radically despicable things to scare people, kill innocent people, hurting innocent people. Of course when states use force they can also harm civilians also, it’s a tragedy of this last hundred years or so that civilians have more and more been in crossfire either by terrorist or whether by conventional warlike acts. So, in either case it’s about controlling vocabulary. Self defense is words that sound better than terrorism. And the ability to control the vocabulary the ability to control in many ways the issue. But certainly both state sponsored terrorism and true simple terrorism, the unmodified definition of terrorism by the smaller group are terrible, are terrible things. And as long as we are competing for things like a limited and very geopolitically strategically important supply of oil and other such things these forces that underly these terrible tragedies I think will continue.

by Bill Joy

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Bora Cosic: Because the powerful are those which are making the terminology. When someone tries to attack the powerful, then they are allowed in self-defense to make bloody scenes in interaction with terrorist. However it is terror as well to destroy residential areas or kill innocent people only because someone from same nation did terrorist or saboteur act in some bus, on some street, or somewhere else. It is the same. Terror is happing there when some action is made by force against someone who is not using force, someone who is innocent, some one who is passer by on the street.

by Bora Cosic

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Brian J. Weller: Self-defense and terrorism; terrorism is being used today in a very skewed and actually a very corrupt kind of way. It’s a corruption of language. But this notion of War on Terror, which is an oxymoron, is a manipulated and manipulating expression. It’s spoken by a very weak-minded and ignorant people. You can never ever solve the problem of terrorism through force. I suppose really the answer the question here is because the powerful press writes the history. They manipulate the truth and self-defense is justified in a climate of oppression. Non-violent defense is difficult, but it is best and Gandhi showed that. Terrorism is never justified, but it is the desperate act from desperate people. And the War on Terror again is just flagrant nonsense. It’s an ignorant strategy and history shows it doesn’t work. You think about it, the military industrial complex, that expression I think was credited by Eisenhower, is a psychotic manifestation of the worst kind. And the fact that nations profit from this is despicable.

by Brian J. Weller

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Catherine David: Unfortunately, thats more a conclusion than a question. We seem to live in world without political, economical, social or cultural problems and that there is nothing but terrorism. So I think thats our backing and the terrorism are the others. And this even if we realized in the last years that the worse terrorism which is the most violent, which kills most of the people which troubles our daily life, is the terrorism coming from states, as the example of America shows off. And this kind of terrorism is much worse than the terrorism more or less violent coming from certain splinter groups.

by Catherine David

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

China Keitetsi: Anyone who uses force and kills is a terrorist. This is terrorism, because I see no sense in saying that you're fighting for good and yet so many blood is wasted; so many innocent people are wasted. I think the best should be first dialog to talk things over. Because in my opinion, any war whether its terrorism or whether it's a just war, wastes and destroys a lot of things. Yet when they could use those very money that they are using in the war, to develop, to even find the idea, why is it like this? The war destroys. The war leaves damages bigger than the damage you are trying to fight or that the mistake you're trying to make right. The war leaves scars. Now you have two scars. Now you have two war. Now you have two damages.

by China Keitetsi