On inauguration day, Bush announced his national policy "with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Bush didn't actually use the word "terrorism" or "terrorist" in his speech, but those are implied in ending tyranny. I won't tackle "Who is a tyrant" (that might get too touch!) but I will tackle another question: who do you consider a terrorist?
Bin Laden and his lackies are for sure terrorists.
Israelis consider Palestinians who do things like suicide bombing terrorists.
Palestinians consider many Israeli soldiers terrorists.
Some Middle Eastern leaders consider Israeli a terrorist state. (Here's one example: Turkey)
What about people who bomb abortion clinics? Are they terrorists?
Did you know that many in the Arab Muslim world considers George Bush a terrorist?
ter·ror·ism (n.) : The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Now this makes it interesting. Since terrorism is defined as "unlawful use of force", we get to the question of who decides what is lawful. It's pretty agreed upon that terrorist attacks such as the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks count as terrorism, since these acts are clearly unlawful and aimed at intimidating American society/government. However, there are stickier situations.
Most of the world called the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 "illegal"; that would make the war an act of terrorism, especially since it was aimed at "intimidating" and "coercing" a government. (Then again, maybe it was just aimed at "obliterating" a society and government. In that case, does it count as terrorism?)
Obviously Israelis consider Palestinians to be acting illegally when doing suicide bombings. But Palestinians (along with the rest of the Arab world) consider the entire state of Israel to be an illegal creation, so anything Israelis do to displace or control Palestinians would pretty much be illegal. Even if we consider Israel a legal state, some of its acts could still be considered terrorism. For instance, the wall fencing off the West Bank. Explicitly the purpose was to keep out Palestinian terrorists; but it seems like the real purpose is probably attempted intimidation of Palestinian society/government. Now the question of legality: 150 nations in the United Nations voted the creation of the wall was illegal, 6 voted it was legal. Incidentally, the United States was one of those 6, and so the US government can't consider the act terrorism.
Abortion clinic bombings. Those could be terrorism. It depends if the bombers intend to coerce the society or government into making abortion illegal, or if they are just trying to shut down the one abortion clinic.
This is interesting to think about, right? We want to end terrorism. What kind of terrorism? If we are working towards any kind of international cooperation, understanding, or peace, it seems we need to look to international definitions of legality when considering what is terrorism. Until then, we will be ridding the world only of a narrowly US-conceived idea of terrorism.
2 comments:
One of the definitions of tyranny according to the OED is “arbitrary or oppressive exercise of power; unjustly severe use of one’s authority; despotic treatment or influence; harsh, severe, or unmerciful action.” Hmmm. What government does that sound like?
As far as the term terrorist, it originally denoted a perpetrator of the Terror of the French Revolution, but now has come to be applied to anyone violently defying a governement or a people, usually outside of the traditional battlefield. But since the traditional battlefield is now obsolete, this last description is largely irrelevant. The use of the term is always relative. Almost anyone who is classified as a terrorist by some is also classified as a patriot by others. The mujahideen during Russia’s war in Afghanistan were terrorists in the eyes of the Russians, but the US called them freedom fighters. Of course, once the US had its own war in Afghanistan, Americans were quick to accept Russia’s view. Modern terrorism seems to me to be a direct result of the centralization and escalation of military might. When one is outnumbered and outgunned, then “terrorism” is all one has as a viable weapon. American “revolutionists” were some of the first to adopt guerilla warfare, which is essentially “terrorism” applied to a more traditional battlefield. It all depends on whether you will fight for your goal using “any means necessary.” I happen to believe that the ends never justify the means, but US foreign policy has never seemed to agree. So to declare a war on “terrorism” or “tyranny” is not only as ridiculous as a war on drugs or poverty, it is also the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.
Okay, this should have been a post on my own blog. Sorry, Val. Congrats again.
I hate to disagree, but bombing an abortion clinic is ALWAYS terrorism. Just like the IRA bombing cars, or Tim McVeigh, bombs outside of warfare targeting civilians equals terrorism. Now in the case of Palestinians, they are not allowed to have an army because they are not allowed to be a country, so what other options do they have? At least they go down fighting...thye take themselves out along with their targets. I'm not saying it is right, it is still terrorism, but the Israelis are worse in my opinion. Although, since it is THEIR COUNTRY (unfortunate but true) it is not classified as terrorism. What we did to Afghanistan was terrorism. I hate W.
Post a Comment