- William Chapman (via arabarabarab)
“That is at least a coherent definition. But doesn’t that then encompass the vast majority of violent acts undertaken by the US and its allies over the last decade? What was the US/UK “shock and awe” attack on Baghdad if not a campaign to intimidate the population with a massive show of violence into submitting to the invading armies and ceasing their support for Saddam’s regime? That was clearly its functional intent and even its stated intent. That definition would also immediately include the massive air bombings of German cities during World War II. It would include the Central American civilian-slaughtering militias supported, funded and armed by the Reagan administration throughout the 1980s, the Bangledeshi death squads trained and funded by the UK, and countless other groups supported by the west that used violence against civilians to achieve political ends.
The ongoing US drone attacks unquestionably have the effect, and one could reasonably argue the intent, of terrorizing the local populations so that they cease harboring or supporting those the west deems to be enemies. The brutal sanctions regime imposed by the west on Iraq and Iran, which kills large numbers of people, clearly has the intent of terrorizing the population into changing its governments’ policies and even the government itself. How can one create a definition of “terrorism” that includes Wednesday’s London attack on this British soldier without including many acts of violence undertaken by the US, the UK and its allies and partners? Can that be done?
I know this vital caveat will fall on deaf ears for some, but nothing about this discussion has anything to do with justifiability. An act can be vile, evil, and devoid of justification without being “terrorism”: indeed, most of the worst atrocities of the 20th Century, from the Holocaust to the wanton slaughter of Stalin and Pol Pot and the massive destruction of human life in Vietnam, are not typically described as “terrorism”. To question whether something qualifies as “terrorism” is not remotely to justify or even mitigate it. That should go without saying, though I know it doesn’t.
The reason it’s so crucial to ask this question is that there are few terms - if there are any - that pack the political, cultural and emotional punch that “terrorism” provides. When it comes to the actions of western governments, it is a conversation-stopper, justifying virtually anything those governments want to do. It’s a term that is used to start wars, engage in sustained military action, send people to prison for decades or life, to target suspects for due-process-free execution, shield government actions behind a wall of secrecy, and instantly shape public perceptions around the world. It matters what the definition of the term is, or whether there is a consistent and coherent definition. It matters a great deal.”
I agree with his article. I think the definition matters a great deal. Horrific acts of violence and terrorism do not necessarily go hand in hand. When the West applies it to the actions of its enemies but not towards its own unnecessary actions, drone strikes, etc. it needs to be analyzed more. This isn’t the full article, but I think it’s worth a read, and worth more discussion.
Meet the first all-Emirati, all-girl rock band
Dee Graham, Edna Rawlings & Roberta Rigsby. Loving to Survive: sexual terror, men’s violence, and women’s lives. NYU Press. July 1 1994. (p. 16)
2 out of 5 finals done, and I leave in 8 days. Leaving after 11 months feels so, so strange.
You would think, after moving every 2-3 years my whole life, that I would be used to it, and I’m not. I don’t think you can ever get used to it, and ‘going home’ isn’t really ever possible.
- Albert Camus (via tarafrankiebeebop)
I just want to say that I wish several major news sites had placed some sort of warning at the beginning of the London video so that those of us who are squeamish don’t have to see the front image of that video when we visit their home pages to check the news. If you want to watch it great, I don’t, and I most certainly didn’t want to continue to check breaking news on CNN, Al Jazeera, and The Guardian to immediately see that image from the video with no warning at all. I can understand the gravity of the situation without physically seeing gore from the scene.
So it’s fair to say I’m done with the news for a long while, though I would guess there will be no escaping that video.
‘They create an environment where rape is funny, where you can be boastful about it.’ An environment where, according to court documents, it’s alarmingly easy to post a video of the sexual abuse of a 12-year-old girl.
The trolls will always be with us, but corporations have an obligation to set the tone. Free speech isn’t hate speech. Free speech doesn’t look like a group called Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs. And a hostile, violent environment makes the concept of a place built around the word “friend” just a cruel, stupid joke. Or, as one of the letter’s commenters noted Tuesday, “On Facebook, hating a religious or ethnic minority gets you banned, but hating half of humanity gets you Likes.”"
Given recent allegations that 3 military service members — all who are in charge of sexual assault programs — committed sexual assaults, Fox News has seriously underreported the topic. While MSNBC spent nearly 5 hours on it in the last 2 weeks, Fox News spent less than 19 minutes.
And most of that was Shep.