Category: international

I don’t know a lot about John Bolton, certainly less than I should, but even if I thought he were the swellest guy in the world, this would piss me off.

The National Counterterrorism Center has redefined “terrorism” to include 3,200 incidents in 2004, up from 651 under the old definition.

I’m wary of any “redefinition”, but especially of one that changes numbers so drastically, and so clearly in a way that supports the administration’s priorities. On the other hand, CNN says:

the earlier estimate did not include the following:

• The February 27, 2004, sinking of a superferry in the Philippines that killed about 130 people when a bomb planted by Abu Sayyaf rebels went off. The terrorist attack was one of the deadliest in the history of the Philippines.

• The August 24 downings by Chechen suicide bombers of two Russian airliners. The attacks occurred nearly simultaneously, killing a total of 89 people.

It certainly seems like any realistic definition of terrorism should include those incidents.

But what about the other 2,500? I couldn’t find a simple list of changes (I’d guess it’s more complicated than that anyway, although I don’t know), but here are the two I did find:

1. Domestic incidents are now counted. IE, Iraqi insurgents attacking Iraqi police (but not Iraqi soldiers). Only international attacks were counted before.
2. The new definition includes all damage and injuries. The old definition included only those attacks that caused more than $10,000 in damage or non-superficial injuries.

They’re also announcing the launch of a new website, the Terrorism Knowledge Base. It gives the following definition:

Terrorism is violence, or the threat of violence, calculated to create an atmosphere of fear and alarm. These acts are designed to coerce others into actions they would not otherwise undertake, or refrain from actions they desired to take. All terrorist acts are crimes. Many would also be violation of the rules of war if a state of war existed. This violence or threat of violence is generally directed against civilian targets. The motives of all terrorists are political, and terrorist actions are generally carried out in a way that will achieve maximum publicity. Unlike other criminal acts, terrorists often claim credit for their acts. Finally, terrorist acts are intended to produce effects beyond the immediate physical damage of the cause, having long-term psychological repercussions on a particular target audience. The fear created by terrorists may be intended to cause people to exaggerate the strengths of the terrorist and the importance of the cause, to provoke governmental overreaction, to discourage dissent, or simply to intimidate and thereby enforce compliance with their demands.

Life would be easier if everything were black and white.

Spain legalizes gay marriage

3 down, 190 to go.

I thought I’d missed my opportunity to post this because Newsweek starts charging for content after only a week, but luckily the author himself has archived columns available for free on his own site. I’m talking about Fareed Zakaria’s article in the June 27, 2005 (I know, I know, I’m running a bit behind here) Newsweek suggesting that US sanctions keep unwanted governments in power, even help consolidate their power, while free and open trade and discourse often result in a changing of the guard.

For almost five decades the United States has put in place a series of costly policies designed to force Cuba to dismantle its communist system. These policies have failed totally. Contrast this with Vietnam, also communist, where Washington has adopted a different approach, normalizing relations with its former enemy. While Vietnam remains a Leninist regime in many ways, it has opened up its society, and the government has loosened its grip on power, certainly far more than that of Fidel Castro. For the average person in Libya or Vietnam, American policy has improved his or her life and life chances. For the average person in Iran or Cuba, U.S. policy has produced decades of isolation and economic hardship.

How To Change Ugly Regimes

I’ve neglected to pay much attention to the upcoming elections in Lebanon for the last few weeks, but since they start tomorrow, I figured I should do some reading.

The Monitor has a helpful Q&A, and The Daily Star has some apparently contradictory articles about whether or not it’ll be a landslide.