Why Some People Are Called Terrorists and Others Aren't

From the ADV Broadcast Labels by Dr. William L. Pierce on 12-22-2001. Just as applicable today as it was back then.

"Terrorism" and "terrorist" have been the most-used words on television and in the other controlled news media recently. We've heard over and over about al-Quaeda terrorism and Iraqi terrorism and Palestinian terrorism -- especially about Palestinian terrorism during the past week, with the Bush government repeatedly demanding that Yasser Arafat arrest every Palestinian designated as a "terrorist" on a list given to him by Israel. But we haven't heard anything about Israeli terrorism or about U.S. terrorism: not even a word. The controlled news media in America would have us believe that the governments of Israel and the United States don't engage in terrorism.
So how do we decide what is terrorism and what isn't? Is terrorism what individuals or small groups do when they're angry at a government, but what governments do is legitimate warfare or self-defense or something else other than terrorism?

No, no, that can't be, because we were told that the government of Afghanistan that we just destroyed was a terrorist government, and so is the government of Iraq, which the media want us to destroy next. So maybe it's the type of weapon that's used that determines whether an action is terrorism or not. If one uses a car bomb or a human bomb, as the Palestinians often do, it's terrorism. If one uses a helicopter gun ship, as the Israelis often use to assassinate Palestinian leaders, or an airplane, like we use to bomb Afghanistan, it's not terrorism.

No, no, that can't be right, because Osama bin Laden used airplanes in his attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and we were assured that was terrorism. So why is Mr. Bush's aerial bombing of Kabul or Kandahar not terrorism, while Osama bin Laden's aerial bombing of New York and Washington was? Why wasn't the Clinton government's aerial bombing of Belgrade two years ago called "terrorism" by the media?

Perhaps what distinguishes legitimate warfare from terrorism is motivation. In warfare one attempts to destroy the enemy's military forces and to capture territory from the enemy; in terrorism one attempts to demoralize or terrify the enemy. But then what should we call the carpet-bombing of German cities by the United States during the Second World War? The motive there was to kill as many German civilians as possible and demoralize the German public. That also was the motive behind Britain's program to drop millions of anthrax bombs on Germany during the war. Fortunately, the Second World War ended before Britain could use the anthrax bombs it had prepared, but Churchill had fully intended to use them -- and to use them when it already was apparent that Germany was losing the war. Why is Winston Churchill regarded by all of the controlled media as a hero, as a great and good man, while whoever is mailing anthrax-infected letters to politicians and media bosses in the United States today is regarded as a "terrorist" and is described as "evil" and "cowardly"?

Well, by now the reason why an act of terror is sometimes called "terrorism" and sometimes isn't should be obvious. If someone we don't like does it to us, it's terrorism; if we do it to someone else, it isn't. More to the point, if someone the media bosses don't like strikes at Jews -- Israelis, for example -- or at someone friendly to the Jews -- the U.S. government, for example -- then it's terrorism. If Jews -- Israelis, for example -- strike at Palestinians, or if the U.S. government strikes at anyone -- Afghans or Iraqis, for example -- on behalf of the Jews, then it isn't terrorism.

A somewhat trickier case was the attempt by the Israelis in 1967 to sink the U.S. Navy ship, the Liberty, so that it could be blamed on the Egyptians, generating U.S. hostility against Egypt. Although the attempt failed, the Israelis did kill 35 Americans in their terror attack on the Liberty. The controlled media, of course, not only didn't call it "terrorism" but did their best to hush it up by giving it minimal news coverage. So the rule is: if it's an attack by Jews or on behalf of Jews it's not terrorism. If it's an attack against Jews or against Jewish interests, it is terrorism. That's why Ariel Sharon isn't a terrorist, and Osama bin Laden is. Understand?"