From: Ali Abunimah
To: atc@npr.org, morning@npr.org
Subject: Bomb Attack in Yemen

October 13, 2000

Dear NPR News,

The U.S. government quickly labeled the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen as "terrorist." The absence of any hard data has not restrained the media from connecting it to events in Israel/Palestine, and from brushing off the archive footage of Usama Bin Laden, deadly beard, turban and all.

But should you be so quick to accept the loaded U.S. government characterization? There is no doubt that what happened can be called a deadly attack, a suicide mission, a bomb attack--if it was indeed that. It is also an enormous tragedy for the families of the sailors who were killed. I am, probably like most people in the region, personally opposed to U.S. militarism in the Middle East, and believe it is the root and cause of many problems in the area. But I believe that it should be resisted by non-violent, political means, so i do not support this attack.

But was it "terrorism?" Well, even under the State Department's somewhat skewed and self serving definition, it is not so clear. The State Department defines terrorism as follows:

"The term "terrorism" means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience."

A footnote goes into further detail, stating:

"For purposes of this definition, the term "noncombatant" is interpreted to include, in addition to civilians, military personnel who at the time of the incident are unarmed or not on duty. For example, in past reports we have listed as terrorist incidents the murders of the following US military personnel: Col. James Rowe, killed in Manila in April 1989; Capt. William Nordeen, U.S. defense attache killed in Athens in June 1988; the two servicemen killed in the La Belle discotheque bombing in West Berlin in April 1986; and the four off-duty U.S. Embassy Marine guards killed in a cafe in El Salvador in June 1985."

Clearly, the USS Cole was armed and on duty, and was merely making a brief refuelling stop. Glowing media reports tell us how deadly this type of destroyer is, carrying an assortment of cruise missiles and heavy cannon.

So far, no terrorism. But the footnote goes on:

"We also consider as acts of terrorist attacks on military installations or on armed military personnel when a state of military hostilities does not exist at the site, such as bombingsagainst U.S. bases in Europe, the Philippines, or elsewhere." (Patterns of Global Terrorism, 1999)

So the question as to whether the attack was "terrorist" or not depends only on whether "a state of military hostilities" exists at the "site."

What we know is that the ship was on a refueling stop while on its way to join the U.S. fleet in the Persian Gulf. The United States, as you occasionally report, is engaged in a war against Iraq. The U.S. fleet routinely launches attacks on Iraq from the Persian Gulf and uses sites in several countries for launching attacks on Iraq, including Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Bahrain.

If the United States considers water and sewage treatment plants in Iraq, civilian electricity grids, civil transport and communication facilities in Iraq and Serbia, as well as pharmaceutical factories in Sudan, all to be "legitimate military targets" when it wages war, it is hard to see how an attack on an armed, dangerous warship on its way to make war should not also be considered an act of war, rather than "terrorism."

But we know why "terrorism" is the favorite label. "Terrorism" conjures up thoughts of irrational violence by dark, different and thoroughly evil people fueled by "hate" and religion, specifically "Islam." It is a definition that denies the possibility that violence is generated by legitimate grievances and oppressions. Calling an attack on an armed U.S. warship "terrorism" is a way to put beyond the pale any possibility of resistance to U.S. military action in any place at any time. I really don't know if that is what happened in the case of the USS Cole, but it seems you should at least think about it before parroting whatever the Pentagon tells you.

By the way, as I was watching the sensationalist coverage of the Yemen bombing on TV last night, the commercial breaks were punctuated with breathless ads from Blockbluster Video that "Rules of Engagement," the Hollywood movie which portrays Yemen and Yemeni people as enemies of the United States who ought to be massacred, is "guaranteed to be here for you tonight." Coincidence. or warning of what is to come?

Sincerely,

Ali Abunimah
ali@abunimah.org
http://www.abunimah.org