Israel's Likud party is a terrorist organization.
The Democratic party is a terrorist organization.
These are things you would have to believe in order to label Hamas a terrorist organization in my opinion.
I respect Noam Chomsky, but I don't believe these things.
I believe that the leaders of these parties can and have sanctioned terrorist activity, but I have a problem with the labeling of political parties as terrorist organizations. Terrorist organizations will always be terrorist in nature because that is their purpose. Political organizations can be changed to reject terrorist activities if their leaders adopt humanitarian principles.
However, I do think arguments can be made to the contrary, so long as we're consistent as to what constitutes terrorism and we're equally responsible in recognizing America's terrorist activity under politicians like Reagan, Bush Sr., and Bush Jr, as well as JFK and Clinton.
I'm even open to those of you who want to make the argument that the Democratic party is a terrorist organization. I think it can be made.
This is a very grey area for many of us, and it's about thresholds. When does a group pass over the threshold and become a terrorist organization?
Here on DailyKos, readers seem to believe that Hamas is in fact a terrorist organization.
We also seem to believe that the actions Israel has take over the last week are wrong.
By a 2 to 1 margin.
And if this were a democracy rather than a blog run by a former member of the US military, that would mean we have a mandate here on Kos to condemn Israel's actions of the past week.
From Noam Chomsky's "The Culture of Terrorism"
The central-and not very surprising- conclusion that emerges from the documentary and historical record is that the U.S. international and security policy, rooted in the structure of power in the domestic society, has as its primary goal the preservation of what we might call the "Fifth Freedom," understood crudely but with a fair degree of accuracy as the freedom to rob, to exploit and dominate, to undertake any course of action to ensure that existing privilege is protected and advanced.
...
As the latest inheritors of a grim tradition, we should at least have the integrity to look into the mirror without evasion. And when we do not like what we see, as we most definitely will not if we have the honesty to face reality, we have a far more serious moral responsibility, which should be obvious enough.
...
Domestic dissidence [during Vietnam] was the essential factor that forced state terror underground in the 1980's, leading to problems when certain of its facets were exposed to a broad public during the scandals of 1986.
From Noam Chomsky's "Rogue States"
Rogue's Gallery, Who Qualifies?
...
there is a measure of agreement on general guidelines. In the post-World War II period, these norms are partially codified in the UN Charter, International Court of Justice decisions, and various conventions and treaties.
I'm pretty sure torture qualifies.
Unsurprisingly, the US assault [on Cuba] became considerably harsher after the USSR disappeared from the scene. The measures have been near universally condemned: by the UN, the European Union, the Organization of American States and its judicial body, the Inter-American Juridical Committee, which ruled unanimously that they violate international law, as did the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.
...
US support for Indonesian aggression and slaughter was almost reflexive. The murderous and corrupt General Suharto was "our kind of guy," the Clinton administration explained, as he had been ever since he supervised a Rwanda-style massacre in 1965 that elicited unrestrained euphoria in the US.