Thanks. One uses to say that “our freedom fighters” are “the others' terrorists”, and the Israelis has been most active in trying to establish a definition of terrorism that points to the others and not to themselves. Actually, the U.S. Neo-Conservatives’ “Global War on Terror” was as much an Israeli concept targeting the others: the Muslims or the Arabs. General Bill Odom spoke out against this approach. His argument is at least more scholarly: “terrorism is a tactic”. It is a tactic used in, for example, asymmetric warfare and in that sense, it is a form of warfare: “a warfare of the poor”. But terrorism can as well be used by the great power in its proxy war against the other: “the US has long used terrorism” and “has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics”, to quote Odom. But let’s see if we can find a distinction. Firstly, people argue that the essential aspect of a terrorist attack is not the actual destruction, but “the message”, for example the threat that is created. However, in regular warfare, the message is often equally important. You signal something to your opponent, so in this case, warfare does not distinguish itself from terrorism. A second argument is that in a war, it is acceptable with civilian casualties if you target something of military value, while terrorism is often described as targeting civilians, but it is more complicated. Israel has been able to target specific Hezbollah leaders in cars or in apartments in Lebanon, but they have still killed more than 40 000 Palestinians and largely children in Gaza, which then is impossible to explain with lack of precise targeting capability. Also, a war can target civilians as a genocide or just as an attempt to weaken the will of the people, for example with the use of area bombing. It is a war crime but still an act of war, and it does not distinguish itself from terrorism. A third argument is that a war has more or less clearly defined actors. You know who is in war with whom, while in a terrorist attack, the perpetrator is often hidden. And if you find out which individual that had planted a bomb, you may still not know who actually was responsible for the operation. It creates uncertainty, and, accordingly, a terrorist action could easily be used as a “false flag operation”: you target someone and put the blame on the others. But this is a kind of operation that is also often used in warfare, and the difficulty to track the perpetrator in a terrorist operation is even more obvious in biological warfare. In such warfare, it is not only very difficult to find out who planted a dangerous virus, you may not even know if this virus has mutated naturally or if it has been developed in a laboratory. Different from a terrorist operation, you don’t even know if there is an “intent”, and you may even have “scientists” telling the media that it is all about a naturally developed virus. Still, bomb attacks and arbitrary killings seemingly without connection to any war, are usually described as terrorism. And in the case above, the attack on Nord Stream, is called a “terrorist attack”, because neither the U.S. nor the UK or the Scandinavians would admit being at war with Russia and even less so with Germany. And legally speaking, it will be very difficult to claim that the U.S. is at war with Russia or Germany.
9/11... USA argued, was an act of war, and this gave the NATO countries the excuse to initiate the activistic war policy that at least Danish governments from 2001 were absolutely thrilled with. Not only the Danish population, but the majority of the Danish "folketing" was betrayed to believe that we were "fighting" for the Western "values" - "democracy" and "freedom" - bla-bla-bla. As any knowledgable will know, 9/11 was an act of US terrorism against its own population. And what is the difference between terrorism and war? Insurance companies can have an interest in defining the difference but in the real world... what is the difference? In my view terrorism and war is the same. We are experiencing that states are committing war crimes, governments are waging war against its population and the population is so propaganda saturated it doesn't even notice it.
I must cite Garland Nixon from a tweet (February 20th 2023): "The US literally used a military exercise which simulated protecting NATO countries from a Russian attack... to carry out a military attack against a NATO country... no irony here" and our populations don't notice it...
Fascinating. What do you make of the Greek Minerva Julie tanker that circled over the northeastern explosion site for an entire week in early September 2022? Just a distraction or did it provide cover for some operation? https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/the-minerva-julie-unknowing-submarine . And what about the southwestern explosion early in the morning at a very different location?
Thanks. Tankers may stay in an area for some time waiting for orders, but it is equally true that civilian ships like tankers sometimes are used in covert military operations. In this case, we just don't know.
Both Swedish and German investigators have thrown cold water on the theory that Russian vessels had something to do with the sabotage. The relevance of the observed Russian vessels has been “dismissed” by German investigators and their movements “have been able to be excluded from the investigation,” Expressen reported in May. The ships' “positions have been mapped and the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed.” Mats Ljungqvist, the lead prosecutor on the Swedish investigation, told The Guardian in April that he was “aware” of the Russian ship movements before. “This is not new information to us,” he said. Moreover, in March, Ljungqvist had stated to The New York Times: “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It's not logical.”
Thanks. One uses to say that “our freedom fighters” are “the others' terrorists”, and the Israelis has been most active in trying to establish a definition of terrorism that points to the others and not to themselves. Actually, the U.S. Neo-Conservatives’ “Global War on Terror” was as much an Israeli concept targeting the others: the Muslims or the Arabs. General Bill Odom spoke out against this approach. His argument is at least more scholarly: “terrorism is a tactic”. It is a tactic used in, for example, asymmetric warfare and in that sense, it is a form of warfare: “a warfare of the poor”. But terrorism can as well be used by the great power in its proxy war against the other: “the US has long used terrorism” and “has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics”, to quote Odom. But let’s see if we can find a distinction. Firstly, people argue that the essential aspect of a terrorist attack is not the actual destruction, but “the message”, for example the threat that is created. However, in regular warfare, the message is often equally important. You signal something to your opponent, so in this case, warfare does not distinguish itself from terrorism. A second argument is that in a war, it is acceptable with civilian casualties if you target something of military value, while terrorism is often described as targeting civilians, but it is more complicated. Israel has been able to target specific Hezbollah leaders in cars or in apartments in Lebanon, but they have still killed more than 40 000 Palestinians and largely children in Gaza, which then is impossible to explain with lack of precise targeting capability. Also, a war can target civilians as a genocide or just as an attempt to weaken the will of the people, for example with the use of area bombing. It is a war crime but still an act of war, and it does not distinguish itself from terrorism. A third argument is that a war has more or less clearly defined actors. You know who is in war with whom, while in a terrorist attack, the perpetrator is often hidden. And if you find out which individual that had planted a bomb, you may still not know who actually was responsible for the operation. It creates uncertainty, and, accordingly, a terrorist action could easily be used as a “false flag operation”: you target someone and put the blame on the others. But this is a kind of operation that is also often used in warfare, and the difficulty to track the perpetrator in a terrorist operation is even more obvious in biological warfare. In such warfare, it is not only very difficult to find out who planted a dangerous virus, you may not even know if this virus has mutated naturally or if it has been developed in a laboratory. Different from a terrorist operation, you don’t even know if there is an “intent”, and you may even have “scientists” telling the media that it is all about a naturally developed virus. Still, bomb attacks and arbitrary killings seemingly without connection to any war, are usually described as terrorism. And in the case above, the attack on Nord Stream, is called a “terrorist attack”, because neither the U.S. nor the UK or the Scandinavians would admit being at war with Russia and even less so with Germany. And legally speaking, it will be very difficult to claim that the U.S. is at war with Russia or Germany.
9/11... USA argued, was an act of war, and this gave the NATO countries the excuse to initiate the activistic war policy that at least Danish governments from 2001 were absolutely thrilled with. Not only the Danish population, but the majority of the Danish "folketing" was betrayed to believe that we were "fighting" for the Western "values" - "democracy" and "freedom" - bla-bla-bla. As any knowledgable will know, 9/11 was an act of US terrorism against its own population. And what is the difference between terrorism and war? Insurance companies can have an interest in defining the difference but in the real world... what is the difference? In my view terrorism and war is the same. We are experiencing that states are committing war crimes, governments are waging war against its population and the population is so propaganda saturated it doesn't even notice it.
I must cite Garland Nixon from a tweet (February 20th 2023): "The US literally used a military exercise which simulated protecting NATO countries from a Russian attack... to carry out a military attack against a NATO country... no irony here" and our populations don't notice it...
Great analysis! Thank you Ola Tunander.
Brilliant, Ola. Are you called in as a witness? If not, you should ask for it, or send this study to the court.
Brilliant analysis. Thank You.
Excellent Nord Stream piece
Fascinating. What do you make of the Greek Minerva Julie tanker that circled over the northeastern explosion site for an entire week in early September 2022? Just a distraction or did it provide cover for some operation? https://oalexanderdk.substack.com/p/the-minerva-julie-unknowing-submarine . And what about the southwestern explosion early in the morning at a very different location?
Thanks. Tankers may stay in an area for some time waiting for orders, but it is equally true that civilian ships like tankers sometimes are used in covert military operations. In this case, we just don't know.
Both Swedish and German investigators have thrown cold water on the theory that Russian vessels had something to do with the sabotage. The relevance of the observed Russian vessels has been “dismissed” by German investigators and their movements “have been able to be excluded from the investigation,” Expressen reported in May. The ships' “positions have been mapped and the conclusion must be that they have not been in such a place that they could have carried out the deed.” Mats Ljungqvist, the lead prosecutor on the Swedish investigation, told The Guardian in April that he was “aware” of the Russian ship movements before. “This is not new information to us,” he said. Moreover, in March, Ljungqvist had stated to The New York Times: “Do I think it was Russia that blew up Nord Stream? I never thought so. It's not logical.”
All the links can be found here: https://jeffreyabrodsky.substack.com/p/lab-analysis-does-not-detect-explosives