The US government has its own intriguing operational definition of
"terrorism" (adopted with virtual unanimous obedience in commentary in the
media and the largely fraudulent discipline of "terrorology"). "Terrorism"
means terrorist acts by official enemies; or more broadly, actions that
Washington doesn't like, sometimes qualifying as terrorism in the
technical sense, sometimes not.  But of course not terrorist acts by the
US or its clients.

Take today's newspaper for example (Aug. 22). An article quotes the top
terrorologists as explaining (with much approval) that with the bombing of
Afghanistan/Sudan, the US is "adopting Israeli tactics." The main
illustration given is an interesting one: an Israeli helicopter attack in
Lebanon in 1992 targeting and murdering Hizbollah leader Sheikh Abbas
Mussawi (along with his wife and their infant child) -- considered a great
and heroic blow against terrorism. Here's some background, pointedly
omitted though well known by all of the (minimally qualified) Israeli and
American commentators. Before the murders, Hizbollah had limited its
actions to Lebanon and had carried out no rocket attacks against Israel.
After that it did attack northern Israeli, mostly in retaliation to
Israeli attacks north of its "security zone" (which it has occupied
illegally for 20 years, in violation of Security Council orders). The
Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israel are described (rightly) as terrorism.
The Israeli attacks in Lebanon to which they are (mostly) a response are
"legitimate self-defense," no matter who is slaughtered. Hizbollah actions
in Lebanon before the murder of Mussawi and his family are called
"terrorism," because they were actions taken against Israeli military
forces occupying Lebanon illegally (but with US blessing).

There's one major UN resolution on terrorism, passed 153-2 (and never
reported here, to my knowledge). The two were the usual two, and they
objected (which amounts to a veto, since one was the US) because the
resolution, while strongly condemning terrorism in all its forms, added
that the resolution did not apply to people struggling against
racist/colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation -- like
Hizbollah in Lebanon, for example. For the US and Israel (and then, South
Africa), such resistance is intolerable terrorism.

So it continues. There's a lot to say about the matter. I've written about
it a lot, as has Ed Herman and some others. Not that the US and Western
intellectuals are the only guilty parties in this regard. But they rank
well in the competition...

Noam Chomsky [in Z Magazine forum]