State Department brushes up "terrorist" list:
"Terrorism" definition presented

by MC5, October 6, 2001

On October 5th, the State Department as required by law,
released an updated list of "Foreign Terrorist Organizations."
The new list is the same as the 1999 list minus the Japanese Red 
Army and the Peruvian MRTA. The State Department also added
the real IRA and the AUC (the paramilitary of Colombia).

We recommend our readers go to the following
link:

http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/fto_info_1999.html#definition

Below is the 1999 list.
1. Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
2. Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
3. Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
4. Aum Shinriykyo
5. Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
6. HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
7. Harakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
8. Hizballah (Party of God)
9. Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
10. Japanese Red Army (JRA)
11. al-Jihad
12. Kach
13. Kahane Chai
14. Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
15. Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE)
16. Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK, MKO, NCR, and many others)
17. National Liberation Army (ELN)
18. Palestine Islamic Jihad-Shaqaqi Faction (PIJ)
19. Palestine Liberation Front-Abu Abbas Faction (PLF)
20. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
21. Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)
22. al-Qa'ida
23. Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
24. Revolutionary Organization 17 November (17 November)
25. Revolutionary People's Liberation Army/Front (DHKP/C)
26. Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
27. Shining Path (Sendero Luminoso, SL)
28. Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA)

Also of interest is the legal definition of 
"terrorist" which requires one of five
points present, two of which are as follows:

"(IV) An assassination."

"(V) The use on any--"

"(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear 
weapon or device," or

"(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere 
personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, 
directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more 
individuals or to cause substantial damage to 
property."

In other words, the U.S. Government should be sued in court
to include itself as a terrorist organization,
especially in its operations abroad. If that
fails, at the very least the Zionist regime should be
counted as a terrorist organization. It states right
in the State Department's documents that its opinions
are subject to judicial review.

George W. Bush's use of explosives
in dropping bombs on Iraq certainly qualifies as "terrorism" 
under section (V)a. The law is a pretty clear case of 
writing something so vague that the law enforcement official
using it can do whatever s/he likes. Then if the courts share
the prejudices of the initial law enforcement officer such
as Colin Powell, the law will have performed its duty
despite applying to just about anyone who uses violence.

Before the word "terrorism" became used by the U.$. government
to apply to anything it did not like politically, such as Palestinian
armed struggle for a Palestinian state, "terrorism" hinged on 
the idea of deliberately attacking unarmed civilians, mainly for the 
largely psychological effect on third parties. Those civilians 
would be people not engaged in combat or para-militaries or otherwise
resisting any military force. "Terrorism" was supposed to be a separate thing
from war in general between opposing militaries.

The attack on the World Trade Center is terrorism
by most common definitions. The people inside the World Trade
Center were civilians.

The attack on the Pentagon starts to
get fuzzy for the definition of "terrorism," because although 
civilian airline passengers died, the target was a military target.
With its lower standards, the U.S. Government is a leading pioneer
in saying that civilian deaths on the way to a military attack 
are not "terrorism."

Most notably, the U.S. Government dropped bombs on Vietnam 
killing over 3 million people as admitted by the Secretary of 
"Defense" at the time, Robert McNamara.  While this bombing
may have disrupted military supply trails, it certainly killed
mostly civilians.

The current situation in Iraq is also U.$. terrorism, because U.S.
forces are enforcing blockades that prevent supplies of food
and medicine from getting into Iraq. The point of killing
half a million or more children is to affect the political leadership
(in the best possible interpretation) and hence "terrorism." In
the worst possible interpretation of what the United $tates is doing,
the sanctions against Iraq enforced through the military are
"genocide" and not just terrorism. Since it appears that the United
$tates opted not to remove Saddam Hussein and that analysts have
said that any new regime in Iraq would also be Islamic and anti-
American, the point in Iraq appears to be "genocide" not "terrorism."

Notes:
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8709-2001Oct4.html
for another discussion of "terrorism."