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

Avi Primor: Well, first of all I do believe that this is not true. This is not the case. If the powerful uses force, he can be or be regarded as a terrorist. Take the example of Hitler. Hitler or his regime have been considered a terrorist state, and the war has not been lead for reasons of self-defence. The weaker and smaller ones who had to defend themselves against Hitler were not regarded as terrorists throughout the world. Well, maybe by the Nazi propaganda, but in world history they are not considered being terrorists. Terror has a specific meaning. Terror does not mean guerilla. Terror does not mean the fight of the weaker one, the smaller one, but a fight against the innocent. Terror means to attack the civilian population, to attack the innocent, to attack the ones who have nothing to do with the fight. That is the meaning of terror. When palestinians hijack planes in Europe, that is terror. When they do send suicide attackers against the civilian population, that is terror. When they do defend themselves against the settlers, on the other hand, when they defend themselves against the army, the occupying army, then they are not terrorists but guerilla fighters. It doesn´t matter whether they are right or wrong, but they are not terrorists. Well, terror is a type of war that cannot be tolerated or accepted, and this has nothing to do with the stronger or weaker ones.

by Avi Primor

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

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Constantin von Barloewen: There are naturally differences between activities and self-defense of terror, but undoubtedly the powerful states in the east have, like Russia or in the west, America, today a Hybris of the designation terrorism, this is a fallacy, this is a political lie, which the war in the Iraq was led, are continued to deliver by the military Occupation of the Americans. Against the terrorism, which… the occupation of Iraq is not directed against terrorism just as few, as there were ABC weapons there as motive for the occupation of the Iraq. That is politically not justified. The war against terrorism must be led differently, it acts here also over, I would like to say, cosmic wars, the shape that always a superordinate spirit and culture and a religion history as a condition for identity conflicts at all become effective. Only if one understands these backgrounds, I would like to say, to cosmological dimension of the ethnical conflicts, can one proceed against terrorism. In India, it is the Mahabarata, national e9pos. In the Islamic culture there is Koran traditions, thus it is actually cosmological wars and terrorism can only be eliminate this way, by understanding this dimension of spirit-historical backgrounds. National sole responsibility and also self-defense is a Hybris of the superstates, which wants to sthrengthen their position of power and it also exists national terrorism, like America doing it in Latin America, approximately in the dictatorship in Chile under minister of foreign affairs Henry Kissinger, where in Argentina influence was taken on the violations of human rights, on the murder of approximately 35,000 humans. That is also national controlled and legitimized murders of a superpower. One must here be very carefully to make a distinction between self-defense and terrorism.

by Constantin von Barloewen

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Cornel West: Part of the double standard is often used when it comes to the powerful and the weak. That self-defense becomes a justification is difficult to call in the question because all of us in some sense defend the right to self-defense. When the weak attempt to defend themselves, it becomes a threat to the powerful and such a threat requires a redescription that views it as some how beyond the pale, and views it some how outside of the parameters of what ought to be. And we have to be very suspicious of these double standards that are often used and deployed such that Nelson Mandela becomes a candidate for a terrorist in South Africa for over 30 years; and yet somehow the state terrorism has been at work in a variety of different instances be it in Asia, be it in Latin America, be it in the USA vis-à-vis Latin America, be it in Israel vis-à-vis the West Bank. State terrorism becomes a matter of self-defense. We have to be very honest and candid about our assessment. The killing of innocent human beings is an act of terrorism, no matter done by individuals, groups, or states, no matter what color, no matter what gender. The large scale attack on innocent human beings is a form of institutional terrorism. We have to be honest about that and that’s part of what it is to reshape the climate of opinion, so that we can have moral integrity and ethical consistency in our judgments and assessments of any situation.

by Cornel West

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Dedi Baron: Answertext will be available soon.

by Dedi Baron

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas: Again, this question is a political perception in Asia. But, we indigenous peoples strongly denounce the terrorist activities. That’s not good things in communities because most of the victims of terrorist activities are civilians. And besides, we also indigenous peoples denounce the continuous use of divide-and-rule tactics, low intensity conflict, internal colonization, being employed by powerful states to serve their own interests. Any use of force by nature is being denounced by us indigenous peoples because if you use force, you destroy something, especially you cause the destruction of life of innocent people. And, therefore, whether the use of force is saying it’s a self defense or terrorism activities, it's just the same that you are using force. And so, therefore, you are destroying the life, especially the life of innocent civilians, in this world. And, I think, this is the thing that everybody should reflect on in this world. Do we make difference when you will use force? I don’t think we make difference and, therefore, there is really a need that the use of force should be stopped or terminated or therefore minimized, whatever the term of it can justify using force as a means of solving problems. We can be part of the -- either be part of the solution or become part of the problem. And, it’s our choice, but we would love to motivate, convince each and everyone first to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

by Donato Bayu Bay Bumacas

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Dritëro Kasapi: It is the powerful, the use of force by the powerful that is called self-defense and by the weak is called terrorism because the powerful set the agenda and the weak want to change the agenda in order to influence it. And this dynamic has been there for a very, very long time where the powerful have decided what the agenda is, what are the ways based on their own interest, and the weak have always tried to say, “Wait a minute. We feel differently about this”. And since the powerful are powerful and suppress these voices, the weak become more aggressive. I wouldn’t say that the use of force by the weak, as you say them is just called terrorism because we experience actions of terrorism which I can’t justify them, but the responsibility of this terrorist acts is just as much responsible for the one that commits the terrorist acts, and just as much responsibility we in the West have because we have created this dynamic where desperate people, in order to get heard, in order to feel that they are influencing a global agenda, have to use force, and it’s not that these people are genuinely evil. I think these people are genuinely desperate because the powerful have set the agenda, in that way that suppresses the voices of the weak. Unless we change this balance and these dynamics, I think the spiral of violence will just grow. It’s not about suppressing terrorists. It is not about naming violence in different ways, it’s about trying to get to the root of the whole problem, which is basically in its root very simple to identify. Give the weak the chance to express themselves and feel participant and give them the possibility to empower themselves to decide upon their own future.

by Dritëro Kasapi

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Eliane Potiguara: As I stated in some questions before: during the period of colonization the indigenous women have been put into the last cultural row. They have been put there by their men and by the Elders. This is why it was possible for us to preserve our indigenous culture and traditions until today. If we would have put those women in the front line of wars our history and our culture as well would have been destroyed. We survived five centuries of the so called European colonization and still we maintain our culture. Why is that so? Why are there peoples that have to suffer so much from wars, from colonial invasions and still keep their resistance and have the strength? Like for example the Potiguara people -in the Brazilian coastal strip to whom I belong - who still maintains its indigenous culture, the language, some traditional aspects, dances, the spirituality, [toré] – and keeps its indigenous culture alife. This is only because there has been defence. But when this people defended itself it was defined as rebellion. Rebels, people who don’t have culture, the women were considered prostitutes because they didn’t wear clothes. The catholic church called them pagan souls and the women were seen by the Jesuits as shameless and so they defended themselves. And this is what happens still today, when people start to defend themselves in their own country they are the worst, considered as terrorists and belonging to the unlucky sorts and incomprehensible. The dominators living with their concepts of dominating are always correct and are always right. They’re right because they obtain the money, they have the possibility for progress. I don’t know, but is it really this progress we want? I think it’s not what we want. Indigenous people are never asked what they want. But one thing for sure: We don’t want this progress that’s imposed by the colonists and we don’t even want the colonist. Enough!

by Eliane Potiguara

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Eliot Weinberger: Well, I think that what you are referring to is very specialized uses of both terms in connection with the war in Iraq and not how both of those terms are being used outside of it. So, clearly, this is part of the propaganda machine of the current American administration, which is the idea that we are fighting the war in -- we as Americans are fighting the war in Iraq as a -- in self defense to, as President Bush says, to keep the terrorists from coming over to us and we have to fight them in Iraq, and then that clearly this idea of categorizing all of the different forces in Iraq who are fighting against the American occupation as terrorists, when clearly they are not. There’s this problem of the term terrorism because terrorism I think should be limited to the extremely tiny band of largely educated middle class people who are capable of acts of violence to citizens -- to ordinary citizens usually outside of the countries of their origin, and this is a criminal activity; it is not a military activity. It has to be dealt with [inaudible] as one deals with any kinds of criminals, which is through police and intelligent work. There is no military solution to terrorism. And I think the response of Spain to the bombing in Madrid was the correct one, which was they went and they arrested the people responsible. They did not create a system of fear throughout the country. They did not create red alerts and orange alerts and turned it into a kind of police state, and they also did not bomb Morocco, which is where the -- those terrorists came from. But, they just simply went and arrested those who were responsible.

by Eliot Weinberger

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Elisabet Sahtouris: It’s very true that when the powerful use force it’s called self defense and when the weak use it it’s called terrorism. Why is that? Because the powerful have the right to define their violence in any way they want, basically. I don’t agree, obviously, with this distinction. And I see that my own country, I know that my own country has committed terrorist acts in the rest of the world and that the rest of the world knows that better than the people within the United States know it. And I also see that the war on terrorism was in part artificially created and in part I believe it happened in an angry response to imperialism and the later forms of colonialism that are still causing great inequities in the world. The average, if there is such a thing as an average, suicide bomber is someone who doesn’t have a lot of hope for their life, for their continued life. And many young people all over the world are very depressed by the world’s situation. I have a friend who has had personal conversations with suicide bombers and in one case even changed one of them changed his mind just because someone listened to his story, listened to his anguish, listened to the state of his own family which had been destroyed in warfare and so on. It’s a tragic situation that we have violence of any kind on this planet against each other. I’m an evolution biologist. We are a very rare species in the amount of violence we commit on our kind. It is not natural in the biological world. And I also see that there’s a learning curve in evolution where cooperation can come out of prior hostilities. So I keep hoping that we will be able to end war. I believe the only reason you can recruit young men to war is because they don’t have good economic opportunities without going to war. So let’s hope that we can get this world together through new generations that make pacts with each other that no difference is worth killing each other for.

by Elisabet Sahtouris

Sep 9, 2006 12:15:00 PM cite

Ervin Laszlo: Well, it’s only the powerful that call force, when they use it, self defense and calls the weak using force, terrorism. The weak themselves call the use of force as self-defense or necessarily response to aggression. These are all euphemism, these are self justifications for the use of force, basically there is no justification for the use of force into this roads. It needs to be replaced by dialog, by communication, ultimately by understanding and accommodation.

by Ervin Laszlo