Dangerous Redefinition of ‘Terrorism’

Exclusive: “Terrorism” is a word of condemnation, referring to the coldblooded killing of civilians to advance a political cause. But U.S. pundits and officials have blurred its meaning to cover attacks on American soldiers in foreign lands, a word game that can contribute to more wars, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The classic definition of terrorism is the intentional killing of civilians to make a political point, as in planting bombs near the finish line of a marathon or crashing commercial jetliners into buildings filled with office workers. Yet, the mainstream U.S. media has broadened the definition to include killing U.S. soldiers or allied troops even those operating in foreign lands.

For instance, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman on Wednesday cited as a supposed example of “Iran’s terrorism” the bombing of the Marine base in Beirut in 1983, “believed to be the handiwork of Iran’s cat’s paw, Hezbollah.” And Friedman is hardly alone in citing the Marine bombing in 1983 as “terrorism” along with Iran’s support for Shiite militias who fought the American occupying army in Iraq last decade.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman

The U.S. media routinely treats such cases as deserving of the unqualified condemnation that the word “terrorism” implies. Similarly, that attitude is extended to Hezbollah attacks on Israeli military forces even in the 1980s when Israel was occupying southern Lebanon.

But attacks aimed at military forces not civilians are not “terrorism” in the classic definition. And this is an important distinction because the word carries deservedly negative moral and legal implications that can put those nations accused of “terrorism” in the cross-hairs of economic sanctions and military attacks that can kill hundreds of thousands and even millions of civilians.

In other words, abuse of the word “terrorism” can have similar consequences as terrorism itself, the indiscriminate deaths of innocent people — men, women and children. Much of the case for sanctions and war against Iraq in the 1990s and 2000s was based on dubious and even false claims about Iraq’s alleged support for Al Qaeda and other terrorists.

And, the 1983 case is especially significant because it is a go-to emotional argument in accusing Iran of having “American blood on its hands” and thus unworthy of any normal diplomatic relations. However, when examining the real history behind the Marine barracks bombing, a much more complex and nuanced story unfolds with blame to be apportioned to all sides.

The immediate context for the tragedy was Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 and the multi-sided civil war raging among Lebanese factions. Israeli invaders reached the Lebanese capital of Beirut in a matter of days as part of a campaign to crush the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Then, after more fighting and protracted negotiations, Israel forced the P.L.O. to leave Lebanon, departing for Tunisia. But the P.L.O. left behind women and children in refugee camps at Sabra and Shatila, where Israeli officers allowed Israeli-supported Christian militia forces to massacre more than 700 and possibly thousands of Palestinian and Shiite civilians, one of the most shocking atrocities of the war.

Into this chaos, President Ronald Reagan dispatched a force of Marines as peacekeepers, but they gradually were pulled into the fighting on the side of Israel and its militia allies.

National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, who often represented Israel’s interests in the upper echelons of the Reagan administration, convinced the President to authorize the USS New Jersey to fire long-distance shells into Muslim villages, killing civilians and convincing Shiite militants that the United States had joined the conflict.

On Oct. 23, 1983, Shiite militants struck back, sending a suicide truck bomber through U.S. security positions, demolishing the high-rise Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 American servicemen. Reagan soon repositioned the surviving U.S. forces offshore.

Though the U.S. news media immediately labeled the Marine barracks bombing an act of “terrorism,” Reagan administration insiders knew better, recognizing that McFarlane’s “mission creep” had made the U.S. troops vulnerable to retaliation.

“When the shells started falling on the Shiites, they assumed the American ‘referee’ had taken sides,” Gen. Colin Powell wrote in his memoir, My American Journey. In other words, Powell, who was then military adviser to Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger, recognized that the actions of the U.S. military had altered the status of the Marines in the eyes of the Shiites.

Reagan’s redeployment of the Marines offshore also didn’t end U.S. intervention in Lebanon. The tit-for-tat violence in Beirut continued. CIA Director William Casey ordered secret counterterrorism operations against Islamic radicals and dispatched veteran CIA officer William Buckley. But on March 14, 1984, Buckley was spirited off the streets of Beirut to face torture and death.

In 1985, Casey targeted Hezbollah leader Sheikh Fadlallah in an operation that included hiring operatives who detonated a car bomb outside the Beirut apartment building where Fadlallah lived.

As described by Bob Woodward in Veil, “the car exploded, killing 80 people and wounding 200, leaving devastation, fires and collapsed buildings. Anyone who had happened to be in the immediate neighborhood was killed, hurt or terrorized, but Fadlallah escaped without injury. His followers strung a huge ‘Made in the USA’ banner in front of a building that had been blown out.”

In other words, the U.S. government dove into the bloody swamp of terrorism even as it was condemning other parties of engaging in terrorism. But the moral morass that was Lebanon, circa 1982-85, is not what Friedman and other U.S. propagandists describe when they smear Iran as some particularly evil force. Nor does Friedman operate with an objective definition of terrorism.

As Colin Powell recognized, once the United States joined the Lebanese civil war as a belligerent, U.S. troops became legitimate targets for retaliation. As much as one may lament the deaths of 241 U.S. personnel (or any deaths for that matter), it was not an act of “terrorism.”

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

image_pdfimage_print

24 comments for “Dangerous Redefinition of ‘Terrorism’

  1. Mark Thomason
    September 3, 2015 at 2:36 pm

    Terrorism is a method. What the Israelis did to British troops before their Independence was correctly called terrorism. Begin and Shamir were terrorists before they were Prime Ministers.

    Going to war against a method as enemy, against anyone who uses that method against us (but not those who use the same method for us) is a foolish choice. It can’t win. It isn’t a proper enemy. It is the very definition of lack of focus. It surrenders control to the opponent.

    However, to say they are not terrorists is mistaken.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 3, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      However, to say they are not terrorists is mistaken.

      No sir, the author wasn’t mistaken. Changing a definition to advance the goals of a shitty little nation or its agents just isn’t kosher.

      I located a 1912 dictionary and found the terms there.

      terror extreme frear; fright; one who exites extreme frear
      terrorism a system of government by terror; intimidation
      terrorist one who governs by terror; especially an agent of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France
      terrorize to intimidate or coerce by terror.

      The 1975 book “War in the Shadows” gives the example of German East Africa where “most white men, women and even children, carried” a kiboko – a whip made of hippoptamus hide to turn the natives into cringing animals.

      The Marines in Lebanon were the vicitms of their incompetent commanders, and the attack on them – though extremely effective – was in no way “terrorism”.

    • Roberto
      September 4, 2015 at 12:19 am

      Actually, today’s journalist has a poor education and pudding for brains.

    • Abbybwood
      September 4, 2015 at 9:40 pm

      And now Israel is adopting a new policy to use live ammunition against Palestinians who throw stones:

      http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/03/israel-using-live-ammunition-for-palestinian-crowd-control/

      How long would a policy like this last in the United States?

  2. rosemerry
    September 3, 2015 at 3:29 pm

    William Blum’s book “Rogue State- a guide to the world’s only superpower” lists UN resolutions defining terrorism and their rejection by the USA every time, because no definition of terrorism was acceptable to the USA whose actions always seem to meet the criteria!!

  3. Joe Tedesky
    September 3, 2015 at 3:58 pm

    What did journalist in London back in 1776 call George Washington? I am sure they weren’t calling Washington a patriot, or a freedom fighter. How does that saying go, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist? These names we give war time characters are always interesting. If Hitler had won WWII then who would have been the war criminals? Seriously, don’t think at least Truman or General Grove would have been tried for war crimes if the Japanese had been victorious?

    Remember Tom Friedman is the guy who tried to sell us on the idea that if every nation had a MacDonald’s or a Home Depot, then and only then would we have world peace. Hey Tom the earth isn’t that flat. The only likeable about Friedman, is he comes off very likeable. As far as the NYT goes, it is nothing more than a propaganda rag, distribute through out to confuse the masses. Okay, good crossword puzzles yes, honest reporting…aaahh not so much!

    One of my wishes is that someday America may have a privately owned, commercial/add free news media. Then again I never did get that pony I wished for as a kid, but I can wish can’t I?

    • Joe Tedesky
      September 3, 2015 at 4:06 pm

      Sorry for all the mistakes but it was hard enough trying to get my comment posted. Something is seriously wrong with the comment board. For the last couple of days my postings have not be accepted. One more wish would be to have a edit button so you could fix the misspelling or fix the word or words left out …. oh well.
      ………………………………………………………………………………………………….
      What did journalist in London back in 1776 call George Washington? I am sure they weren’t calling Washington a patriot, or a freedom fighter. How does that saying go, one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist? These names we give war time characters are always interesting. If Hitler had won WWII then who would have been the war criminals? Seriously, don’t you think at least Truman, or General Grove would have been tried for war crimes, if the Japanese had been victorious?

      Remember Tom Friedman is the guy who tried to sell us on the idea that if every nation had a MacDonald’s or a Home Depot, then and only then would we have world peace. Hey Tom the earth isn’t that flat. The only likeable quality about Friedman, is he comes off very likeable, and that’s it. As far as the NYT goes, it is nothing more than a propaganda rag, distributed through out the planet to confuse the masses. Okay, good crossword puzzles yes, honest reporting…aaahh not so much!

      One of my wishes is that someday America may have a privately owned, commercial/add free news media. Then again I never did get that pony I wished for as a kid, but I can wish can’t I?

      • Zachary Smith
        September 3, 2015 at 8:40 pm

        I’ve seen forums where there is a 5-minute window for correcting spelling/grammatical errors. It would be VERY nice to have that here.

        • Joe Tedesky
          September 3, 2015 at 10:54 pm

          Moonofalabama has a preview button. Even with that I make the dumbest mistakes, but I am hoping that most of you are getting use to my many errors, but still get my meaning. I do usually mean well, and although I am not very good at it I like writing stuff.

    • Joe L.
      September 3, 2015 at 4:59 pm

      Joe Tedesky… I agree with you 100% and what we are seeing is “double-speak”. We see it all the time. When another country, especially one that we don’t like, violates human rights then they “torture” someone but when our militaries do the same thing then it is “enhanced interrogation” – like that somehow sanitizes the act. When a country that we don’t like invades another country then it is an act of “aggression” and our politicians/media compare them to Hitler yet when our militaries invade a country then we are “liberating” that country in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” meanwhile no comparisons to Hitler are made. The people of the country that are fighting against the invasion by a country that we don’t like are “freedom fighters” but the people that fight against our invasions in their own countries are “terrorists”. We are living in the most atrocious times that I can think of when “we” are invading country after country (which to me is state-run terrorism), not too mention coups, and somehow in some Orwellian world we paint ourselves as the “heroes” such as movies like “American Sniper” does (kind of like “Red Dawn” turned on its’ head). What also amazes me though is how many people don’t see through the “propaganda” from our own governments/media against us especially after the cheerleading by the media for the Iraq War which we all know was based on LIES – Edward Bernays would be proud.

      • Joe Tedesky
        September 3, 2015 at 11:30 pm

        Joe L, here’s one for you; As Robert Parry points out to how Tom Friedman made mention of Iranian terrorist bombing the Beirut U.S. Marine barracks, we should ask Friedman what he would call the Israeli attempted sinking of the USS Liberty. Are the Israeli’s also terrorist. That’s right the Israeli’s thought they were attacking an Egyptian freighter….sorry, I forgot! Still, what’s in a name, when there is someone left to suffer? This type of propaganda has been around for a very long time. Betnay perfected it for our modern times…let us bow our heads in a moment of silence. The scary thing is our side truly believes we are exceptional. Now, that always presents a problem. Hubris isn’t necessarily a good thing when it comes to finally showing what your metal is made of. The U.S. would do well to concentrate on it’s domestic side. If the U.S. we’re to get it’s own house in order, and then proceed to approach the rest of the world with honest diplomacy, we could then assume a place of great stature in the world community. Instead, if the U.S. continues to ignore it’s own many problems, and diverts all it’s hard earned assets to war, then the U.S. is doomed.

    • SHAFAR NULLIFIDIAN
      September 5, 2015 at 2:24 am

      Had the Axis Forces won WW II, there probably would not have been any war crimes tribunals. The NMT and IMT were unique to warfare. The most savage, brutal, bestial, barbaric, inhumanity to mankind was carried out by the so called good guys, the USA, Great Britain, France and the USSR. The bestial brutality of these misanthropic, truly sub-human, mentally, morally, intellectually and culturally bankrupt, baby killing, child raping continued on after the war and the military tribunals are prima facie evidence of this. These military tribunals were not for the purposes of trying Axis War Criminals but for the purposes of detracting from the war criminality of the Allies!

  4. Tom Welsh
    September 3, 2015 at 4:25 pm

    The Nazis (and the many German soldiers who weren’t Nazis) called the French Resistance terrorists – with more justification. Consider the bare facts. France declared war on Germany – not the other way round. Germany then invaded France and thrashed its armed forces soundly. The French government then surrendered. Legally the Resistance were terrorists because they were fighting the occupiers of their country despite the fact that the war had been declared over.

    In stark contrast, Americans and their stooges in… well, any country at all that they have illegally invaded, are fair game for soldiers or civilians defending their country.

  5. John
    September 3, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    I think maybe Israel and the neocons need a “haircut”……..

  6. Joe L.
    September 3, 2015 at 5:00 pm

    Joe Tedesky… I agree with you 100% and what we are seeing is “double-speak”. We see it all the time. When another country, especially one that we don’t like, violates human rights then they “torture” someone but when our militaries do the same thing then it is “enhanced interrogation” – like that somehow sanitizes the act. When a country that we don’t like invades another country then it is an act of “aggression” and our politicians/media compare them to Hitler yet when our militaries invade a country then we are “liberating” that country in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” meanwhile no comparisons to Hitler are made. The people of the country that are fighting against the invasion by a country that we don’t like are “freedom fighters” but the people that fight against our invasions in their own countries are “terrorists”. We are living in the most atrocious times that I can think of when “we” are invading country after country (which to me is state-run terrorism), not too mention coups, and somehow in some Orwellian world we paint ourselves as the “heroes” such as movies like “American Sniper” does (kind of like “Red Dawn” turned on its’ head). What also amazes me though is how many people don’t see through the “propaganda” from our own governments/media against us especially after the cheerleading by the media for the Iraq War which we all know was based on LIES – Edward Bernays would be proud.

  7. Joe L.
    September 3, 2015 at 5:02 pm

    Joe Tedesky… I agree with you 100% and what we are seeing is Orwellian “double-speak”. We see it all the time. When another country, especially one that we don’t like, violates human rights then they “torture” someone but when our militaries do the same thing then it is “enhanced interrogation” – like that somehow sanitizes the act. When a country that we don’t like invades another country then it is an act of “aggression” and our politicians/media compare them to Hitler yet when our militaries invade a country then we are “liberating” that country in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” meanwhile no comparisons to Hitler are made. The people of the country that are fighting against the invasion by a country that we don’t like are “freedom fighters” but the people that fight against our invasions in their own countries are “terrorists”. We are living in the most atrocious times that I can think of when “we” are invading country after country (which to me is state-run terrorism), not too mention coups, and somehow in some Orwellian world we paint ourselves as the “heroes” such as movies like “American Sniper” does (kind of like “Red Dawn” turned on its’ head). What also amazes me though is how many people don’t see through the “propaganda” from our own governments/media against us especially after the cheerleading by the media for the Iraq War which we all know was based on LIES – Edward Bernays would be proud.

  8. Anthony F. Shaker
    September 3, 2015 at 5:40 pm

    Excellent article. Just one detail. The American, French and Israeli barracks were not bombed just by Hizbullah (whom the media dismisses as an Islamist movement). This military operation was a collaborative effort by Hizbullah and Lebanese progresive organizations which then, as today, comprised the Lebanese Resistance.

    Israel was booted out of Lebanon, except for a small piece of land, because the people of Lebanon knew what Israel was designing for their country: dismemberment. We can now see the Zionist plan in full color as it is carried out in Syria, this time with the assistance of an equally rabid tribal state, Saudi Arabia.

    Syria is not like any other country in the former Ottoman world, which stretches from the Ukraine to Iraq and westward into North Africa. Syria is the hub, not just the cradle, of civilization. Nor does it sit on a “faultline,” as Huntington imagines.

    Hardly surprising, therefore, that merely tinkering with it can poison the world so much. The Ukraine is only the first “canary in the mind” in Syria’s wake. The European Union is now reaping what it has been sowing in blood for the past four years.

    Sadly, everyone will pay for Syria, not just for Palestine, where the vile race colony that is Israel is proving to be the West’s Achelle’s Heel.

    I say to Obama: Stick real close to this violent terrorist state and its lobby of American traitors, keep to your violent rhetoric against Iran and you will bury yourself and your country. Israel is a mortal enemy of the United States of America! It stands for everything Americans despise but which has nevertheless formed part of their history: racism, segregation (Apartheid, in Israel’s case), genocide, violence, militarism, colonization, corruption. This is the tribalism that the US government has been sponsoring.

  9. Gregory Kruse
    September 3, 2015 at 7:11 pm

    The real definition of terrorism is the commitment to cause terror in a population by carrying out acts of vicious and public cruelty, and making it plain that the same thing can be repeated indefinitely without any consequence to the perpetrators. Drone strikes and the ever-presence of drones is the prime example of terrorism.

  10. Glenn Dolphin
    September 4, 2015 at 12:25 am

    With regard to this article, I’d like to make some clarifications some of which are made from personal experience.
    The U.S.S. New Jersey did not fire her guns in Lebanon until after the October 23, 1983 bombing of the Marine Barracks. When she did fire, the targets were Syrian anti-aircraft positions that were firing on US F-14’s flying recon missions in the area.
    I believe the author was referring to the September 19th naval gunfire support mission for Lebanese government forces at the Shouf Mountain village of Suq al Gharb. However, that operation took place against Druze militiamen not Shiite forces. The author is correct that the mission was orchestrated by Robert McFarland over the vehement objections of the Marine Commander on the ground, Col T.J. Geraghty.
    Marines did fire on Shiite positions but only after receiving constant and effective fire from those batteries. Return fire only occurred after Marines were killed and both Shiite and Druze factions refused to cease their fires after receiving repeated warnings.
    With respect to the Israelis; The multinational peace keeping force (MNF) which included the Marines was sent to Lebanon in response to the Lebanese Christian Phalange’s murder of Palestinians at the refugee camps and Sabra and Shatilla. Israeli forces allowed Phalange gunmen to move through their positions to attack the camps. The IDF was not at all happy with us being there. Somewhere in time, the fact that Americans put their lives on the line to protect those civilians and to give the Lebanese the opportunity to reclaim their own sovereignty has been lost.
    Neither Marine batteries nor Navy ships ever fired in support of Israeli forces. In fact, the IDF’s vacating of their positions prior to an agreed upon turnover to the Lebanese Army caused a power vacuum where by LAF forces fought Shiite (soon to be known as Hezbollah) forces to recapture that ground. Marine lives were lost to Shiite artillery fire that landed inside our positions.
    It should also be noted that the US Marines were under orders to not even give so much as the impression that they were working in concert with the IDF. No conferences were held with the IDF without other members of the MNF present.
    The relationship between the Marines and the IDF was icy at best. That was especially true after Marines stopped an IDF tank column from moving through their positions to attack Shiite units who had been firing at them.
    Nabi Berri, the commander of the Shiite, Amal Militia had more contact with the Marine commander than the IDF commander did.
    Throughout that time period, Iran was active in the Shiite areas training and equipping militiamen for combat against not only the US Marines but the other members of the MNF. In fact, Iran placed and paid off on cash bounties for those militiamen who could successfully claimed to have killed Marine officers. As you may recall, the French contingent was also bombed on 10/23. I don’t recall their having taken sides against the Shia. So much for any gratitude from Ayatollah Khomeni for the French having given him asylum from the Shah’s arrest warrants years before.
    The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOI) sent operatives into the Shiite neighborhoods to undermine the Amal so as to elevate the more radical Hezbollah as the dominant Shiite militia. The MOI has pulled the puppet strings on Hezbollah since that time.
    Iran planned the Marine Barracks Bombing down to the last detail. In fact, the driver of the suicide truck bomb was an Iranian national who now has a monument to his “heroism” erected in Tehran.
    Imad Mughnyah, the operative credited as the Lebanese mastermind of the bombing was trained and supplied with the explosives (manufactured in Iran) that were used in the bombing. Afterwards, he was hidden inside Iran for years and went on to have a lengthy, murderous career against both MILITARY and CIVILIAN targets. He was eventually killed by the Israelis just a few years ago.
    Ayatollah Khomeni’s message to the Iranian ambassador in Damascus, ordering the “spectacular attack” on the US Marines was intercepted by DIA. For some reason that information was never shared with the ground commander.
    IMO the US made two crucial mistakes in this early confrontation with Iran. First and foremost, American administrations did not and to my way of thinking still have not recognized that Iran has considered itself at war with the US since, at least the US embassy takeover in Tehran in 1979. Secondly, with respect to the Multi-National Peacekeeping Force in 1983, the US allowed Iran to draw them into the “mission creep” scenario General Powell cited in his book. Their propaganda convinced many in Beirut and even some in the US that the MNF had taken sides against the Shia. With no hope of keeping the peace, rather than playing into Iran’s hand, the MNF should have been removed earlier that summer.
    Was Iran’s attack on the Marines in Lebanon an act of terrorism? Maybe some have the ability to put such a fine discussion point on the matter, but I do not. For me the answer is; “Hell yes it was.” And I’m perplexed as to how administration after administration, full of Ivy League graduates still fail to realize this.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 4, 2015 at 10:20 am

      For me the answer is; “Hell yes it was.”

      If we start permitting “personal” definitions of what words mean, the language essentially becomes useless.

    • Zachary Smith
      September 4, 2015 at 10:23 am

      The forum ate my previous post, so I’ll try again:

      If we start allowing “personal” definitions of what words like “terrorism” mean, the language becomes useless.

  11. September 4, 2015 at 12:51 am

    Write articles if you’d like some websites and ezines with complimentary target markets. Trust created when people our name again and again. Here’s something I’ve noticed from hearing and seeing the gurus on tunes.
    fzpuf
    http://sadas22323sdsddasdadaasdas.com
    xnb xv xvca

  12. Mike Lamb
    September 6, 2015 at 6:54 pm

    Back in the mid 1980s I sent for and received a number of the “Blue Book Series” then produced by the Riverside Baptist Church in New York City.
    One of those small booklets was written by Mort Halperin, as memory serves, and in it the author mentioned how his group had recently, under FOIA, received a copy of a document they had over time requested many times and this time not blacked out was a comment that “the United States had to make more use of terrorism.”
    In a 1998 interview with a French Magazine (published January 15, 1998 in CounterPunch magazine) Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter described how the Carter Administration provided aide to Mujahadeen terrorists attacking the government of Afghanistan which had been promoting women’s rights in the hope that the Soviet Union would intervene and the U.S. could provide the Soviet Union with their “Vietnam.”
    According to Steve Coll’s book “Ghost Wars” the Reagan Administration provided information to the “Mujahadeen” which was used to attack targets INSIDE THE SOVIET UNION.
    Can you just imagine the reaction of Americans had the Soviet Union ever supported armed groups making attacks inside the United States?
    Also, there are forms of “terrorism” which do not show up as a bomb blowing up outside or inside a building. Economic terrorism is one example and recently “cyber” terrorism has entered the realm.
    The United States of America needs to get over it’s entitlement of “EXCEPT US” ionalism in which we find terrorism when we engage in it as fine but when it is used against us as horrible.
    During a 2012 Republican debate candidate Ron Paul was booed by the Republican crowd, many his supporters, when he merely hinted that U.S. policies might have had something to do with why the U.S. was attacked on 9/11/2001.
    Hell, had Ron Paul read to those Republicans Osama bin Laden’s “Letter to America” in which bin Laden listed item by item U.S. actions which had led to those attacks I think those Republicans would have torn him limb from limb.
    As I grew up and went though school in the aftermath of World War II I was taught that the trials at Nuremberg demonstrated American resolve to “justice.” I also recall that the Nazi’s being subjected to justice at Nuremberg claimed it was nothing other than “Victor’s justice / revenge.”
    We need to get back to the values that Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson demonstrated at Nuremberg, having been sent there by President Harry Truman.

  13. September 7, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Hello there I am so grateful I found your site, I really found you
    by mistake, while I was researching on Google for something else, Anyhow I am here now and would just like to
    say many thanks for a tremendous post and a all round exciting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to look over it
    all at the minute but I have saved it and also added your RSS feeds,
    so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more,
    Please do keep up the excellent jo.

Comments are closed.