Noam Chomsky: Official Definitions of Terrorism?

Question

Professor Noam Chomsky put the same question on z net..
What would be your definition or opinion on what constitute terrorism?

Noam Chomsky: Official Definitions of Terrorism

http://blogs.zmag.org/node/2502

Am, chomsky issues with the dfinition of terrorism relates to the fact that when it is other who does acts of violence -Its called terrorism but whenever its his american compatriots- its not..

Also theres is other mean of killing people- economic sanctions since it is aimed at a population are not..

here is a quote for victor whom comments
on this issue

"I would agree with Mr Chomsky's definition of terrorism with an added dimension to consider. We usually think of terrorism in terms of violence and harm to human life. But I believe that there exists also intense military, political, and economic acts designed to intimidate and influence a population or a government."

another blogger add :

Victor raises an important point though. Economic Terrorism through measures by the IMF, WTO, World Bank and national institutions such as the US Treasury, are causing much more death and destruction than wars. Aggressive wars, such as the US' against Iraq, are horrible crimes, ..

yet economic sanctions, "free trade", liberalisation etc are not crimes at all. They are in fact the policy of the West. Then there are for instance TRIPs, that cause great suffering in especially..

This, economics sanctiions and starving populations could also be seen as act of terrorism


Pangea another blogger includes valid sources :

Source: http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm

IIRC Chomsky mentioned this on his recent trip to Ireland as well.

The Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung has drawn some guidelines:

Military v Civilian => State-terrorism
Military v Military => War
Civilian v Civilian => Terrorism
Civilian v Military => Resistance/Guerilla fighting
»

The ruth is definitions of terrorism, is to vaccuous and not broad enough.

Economics sanctions restrictiing food and drugs are usually aimed at a population, this can be seen as terrorism..

Answer 1

One, I think the article is confusing…

Ok after like reading it for like 3 times over to get everything clear…
I agree with what the article said, and I also think the definition should be universal, not just for certain entities.
I also agree that it is a “much more serious crime of aggression”.

I agree that a lot of times terror happens because one group thinks that their beliefs are more legitimate then another’s, and when they think they’re better they think they can force another to conform to it, usually this happens through force. All that the other can do is fight back; defend themselves. I think this is what he meant when he said: “Similar interesting issues about terror and resistance, almost always suppressed in the self-declared "enlightened states."”

What would constitute terrorism?

I think nothing, because I do not believe that terrorism / force / violence solves anything, it just creates more problems and makes stuff more complicated. I believe that one has the right to defend themselves in order to live and live how they wish, but nothing more. Defending yourself doesn’t mean you have to go on a shooting spree or go through with kidnapping schemes or trying to make others believe in what you think.

Ya know in the end of V for Vendetta (in the comic book, and kinda in the movie) V hands it off to Evey, he was the destructive force that brought down the system of oppression but she symbolized the rebirth of a new era of freedom and peace. After experiencing and committing such atrocities how could V go on to help the masses? For what, when the corrupt had fallen. Evey on the other hand had less of a violent history and because of that would most likely be more effective in carrying on V’s symbol since she will not have the luggage of old tendencies. This is assuming that V couldn’t heal himself from such violence he committed and experienced in the past, so instead handed it off to someone who could bring about a future that he truly wanted and dreamed of. Also by him going through with his final act would have been pushing his belief onto the masses, it was up to someone akin or who represented the masses (Evey) to commit the final act to bring down the system once and for all, it was not V’s place because that would have been a force against the masses, that and they may have not been ready for it. People need to free themselves before they can truly end a system that oppresses them. If the people’s minds weren’t freed then destroying the State would serve no purpose because it would be repeated all over again. I think people forget things like this, and that’s why some really good efforts of change are short lived because people forget to work on the root of the problem that also tends to lay within themselves(and everyone for that matter). For example if the root of the problem is money then what does money mean, then when we solve that problem how are we going to live without it and not just create another form of it? In other words how are we going to stop it from manifesting into similar things in the future? We have to be careful of that since we were once so accustom/use to it.

As for Noam Chomsky, I think he’s another academic old white man. One, the article was confusing because it was written so academic like, be forreal don’t try to prove yourself by fancy words. Plus I personally think the man still has some whiteness to work on. Other then that I think he’s done a great job in making the subject of Anarchism a more accepted topic in the academic world and is helping to give credit for it’s political perspective instead of just a philosophical theory.

...
to add to the notes you listed above after the Q:

Yes the IMF, WTO, and World Bank are horrific terrorists just as many governments and other financial institutions around the world are too. So I agree with “victor” the definition should be expanded upon. Yet it is people who make up these oppressive mammoths. The question is who is creative enough to break the cycle? What I mean by cycle is the cycle of violence, because the true end to them will never be done through force. Force against force means only the strongest will win, one of the basic concepts of even Chi Kung.
;-)

The second article seems alot better,
but WAY too long for me to read right now...
I think Corperation => Civilian should be included as Terrorism too LOL ;-)

Answer 2

Hm, that's strange, because I seem to recall Chomsky saying something to the effect that 'even to enter into the arena of debate about whether or not the Holocaust took place is already to have lost one's humanity." I believe the statement you are referring to came from Chomsky's argument that if a person denies the Holocaust that person should not therefore go to prison. Furthermore, as it is important to protect the freedom of academic inquiry (even ridiculous inquiry such as denying the Holocaust) it is important to acknowledge that questioning the historical validity of a claim of genocide does not necessarily indicate a prejudice of the inquirer against the group making the claim. That is, in theory, one could have crackpot reasons for doubting the Holocaust without also being an anti-Semite. I happen to agree with that. However, assuming that I accept this phrase outside of its original context, and dropping everything that I know about Chomsky (who was raised Jewish, and whose father was a Hebrew school teacher), I think it's pretty obvious that denying the Holocaust usually indicates anti-Semitism.

Answer 3

chomsky is an incrediable man and all of his books are
insightful go to a lecture of his if you ever get a chance
have you ever read staughton lynd just as good
good luck

Answer 4

Noam Chomsky is laughing all the way to the bank because of fools like yourself...

Answer 5

Chomsky is nothing more than an old college professor who is still upset that communism collapsed.

Just ignore him and let him continue to live in his dream world.