BENJAMIN NETANYAHU:NEW STANDARD FOR HUMAN STUPIDITY’

War on terror has not only ‘legitimised’ the killing of millions, but has also silenced a fair discussion about them.

More than, say, Christian or Jewish fundamentalism, the rise of political Islam and the emergence ofIslamist terrorism have defined the current age. Those who claim to act in the name of Islam have killed more people in the last two decades than any other branch of religiously inspired terrorism (p. 105; italics added).

“This… point takes on specific meanings under contemporary conditions of war: the shared conditions of precariousness leads not to reciprocal recognition, but to a specific exploitation of targeted population, of lives that are not quite lives, cast as ‘destructible’ and ‘ungrievable’… Consequently, when such lives are lost they are not grievable, since, in the twisted logic that rationalises their death, the loss of such population is deemed necessary to protect the lives of the ‘living’.” (p. 31)

Seldom do mainstream media and terrorism experts discuss these heinous crimes of killings. Rather there is an eerie silence about the loss of this humanity and its bare sufferings. It is almost a policy for media in Australia whose troops are on a “mission” in Afghanistan to rarely report about killings of civilians by Western military. In contrast, news of an Australian soldier injured or killed is notably telecast with a change in newsreader’s voice to solemnity. Importantly, opposition and ruling parties become one to grieve the loss of the “nation” and praise dead soldier’s “mission” that remains as vague as unbelievable

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke out against those who have suggested a policy of containment would work in the case of nuclear Iran.

“Iran is guided by a leadership with an unbelievable fanaticism,

in an interview that will air on Sunday’s Meet The Press. “You want these fanatics to have nuclear weapons?”

He denounced the notion that going to war with Iran would be worse than a nuclear Iran.

I mean I heard some people suggest, David, I actually read this in the American press. They said, “Well, you know, if you take action, that’s a lot worse than having Iran with nuclear weapons.” Some have even said that Iran with nuclear weapons would stabilize the Middle East, stabilize the Middle East. I think the people who say this have set a new standard for human stupidity.

Netanyahu has offered plenty of tough talk about Iran lately

In ‘Great Betrayal’, Kavita Narawane – a partisan of the right-wing RSS – dubbed the Constitutional clause which Indira Gandhi used to declare emergency as “totalitarian” [GALLO/GETTY]

Drawing on intellectual and political history of different regions of the world, in a two-part series, Irfan Ahmad discusses the fallacy of and politics behind the current consensus on what constitutes terrorism. He shows how the dominant definition of terrorism as act of violence by non-state actors to induce political change is conceptually flawed and demonstrates how terror has historically been important to most ruling elites and states across time. Based on diverse examples from India, the US, Israel, Indonesia and elsewhere, to this end, the author also shows how the watertight distinction between state and non-state actors is fragile and unsustainable.  As we approach twelfth year of the West-led war on terror (WOT), it is time to ask: what terrorism is. The more we watch and read about terrorism the less we understand it. The mediatised discourses on terrorism often mystify the phenomenon and politics of terrorism. This article critiques the dominant consensus on terrorism and WOT to pose some unpalatable questions essential for a fair debate. I make three arguments. First, the near consensus that terrorism is an act of violence by non-state actors to enact political change through fear is not only dubious and historically untenable it is also unethical as it unqualifyingly legitimises the state violence/terrorism which is responsible for killing far more number of people than those killed by terrorists. Second, I argue that we begin writing about the terror of counter-terrorists. It is my contention that counter-terrorists too practice terror. In fact, their terror is deadlier because of their assumed legitimacy, gigantic infrastructure, lethal weapons and sheer reach state terror has. To this end, I discuss “symbolic terror” of the term “new terrorism”. In defining contemporary terrorism as distinctly religious, Islamic (often implicit than explicit), the so-called security experts and terrorism scholars perpetuate symbolic terror against Islam.readmore http://nambikaionline.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/29/