Skip to main content

What is "Terrorism"?

I bet that in political discussions today, you will not get past one without the word "terrorist" or "terrorism" being mentioned. You will hear about Al Qaeda terrorists, and Palestinian terrorists. You might seldom hear about ETA terrorists, IRA terrorists, Israeli terrorists, and Coalition terrorists. It's all over the media: terrorist this, terrorist that... terrorist, terrorists, terrorism, terror, terrifying...

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Why the heck did the word "terrorism" become so popular in the media these days? It came out ever since the so-called "war on terror" was declared. First, it was "America under attack", and now it's "war on terrorism". The word gained a reputation, and suddenly, it became a trendy word, used in fear-mongering and capturing the attention of the public sphere. It has been used to refer not only to people, but a sort of "ideology", or a groupthink. "Terrorism" has become a buzzword for the neocon propaganda machine, and the "terrorist" excuse was used to dehumanize their designated enemy, so killing them won't breed on their conscience. It's been used to rally support for their ongoing war OF terror, not a "war on terror".

Besides, the idea of declaring a "war on terror" is as absurd as declaring a war on "happiness" and "happy people". Why is that? Well, "terrorism" is not an ideology. It is not a groupthink. It isn't even an organization that can be defeated. "Terrorism" is a tactic, and it represents one of man's worst natures. "Terrorism", by definition, is a tactic used to drive a civilian populace into fear and submission. It is also intangible, and thus can't be overcome with physical force. Moreover, "terrorism" is subjective: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. In that sense, what "Al Qaeda" (if it exists, that is) refers to as "resistance" of Iraq, the Coalition refers to as "terrorism". What the "IDF" refers to as "counter-terrorism", I refer to as outright terrorism... and even borderline genocide (I know: let's also declare a war on genocide, murder, chaos and war itself!).

But let's assume for a second that the rightwing pundits are actually - need I say it - correct: let's say that yes, there is a war on terror, and that terrorism is an organization. Let's assume that this organization is "evil", in the polarizing sense of the word. Let's also assume that the Coalition is "good". Throughout the course of this "war on terror", the Coalition has committed atrocities till this date... and has neglectfully wasted life. This is testimony to the adage
"Give a good man all the powers he requests to eradicate evil, and before he's finished, you'll wonder why evil has switched sides"
It makes sense in the fact that the Coalition, if it "wins" this "war", will become the new embodiment for the "evil" which is "terrorism" in the way that it becomes what it supposedly hates and fears. The Coalition has indeed gone overboard with not only the use of "counter-terrorism" to mask their intentions, but with the empty use of such rhetoric.

Thus, even if "terrorism" is an ideology or an organization, it can't be defeated: the use of the word "terrorism" has become subjective, and is gaining a new political ground in debate. It is used to arouse an opponent's attention and to give a sort of "meaning" to one's arguments. Such a word is highly emotive and also used with impunity to denigrate resistance fighters, for example. However, terrorism is a tactic, just like retreating and ambushing. Terrorism, however, is an unjust tactic, because it involves killing or any other sort of action that drives fear into the hearts of a civilian populace. It can't be defeated or destroyed. You have to face it: terrorism is a symptom, not a cause, of man's thirst for power and/or revenge. It can't be rooted out, because it is by nature a part of military/militant strategy.

Moreover, a person is not a terrorist unless he/she committed an actual act of terrorism that drives fear into a populace. In the same way, an organization that has been designated a "terrorist" organization does not have every member as terrorists, but has a history of conducting operations in which some of its members have committed acts of terrorism. A state is by definition terrorist if it routinely imposes terrorism as a tactic to drive a populace into submission. On the other hand, this still does not illegitimize attacks against enemy combatants, especially during times of conflict or war. If an operation results in no civilian casualties, but drives fear among the civilian populace, that still can be regarded as terrorism. If an operation results in civilian casualties but no fear being driven amongst the populace, that operation can't be deemed terrorism, but murder.

If only Godwin could make a law about terrorism.

People, please use the word "terrorists" and "terrorism" with sensibility. Apply them only when the definition suits the situation. Also, don't overuse it: the word "terrorist" has watered down the seriousness of political debate these days and, like the "Hitler" argument, has made debate almost nonsensical. Stick to the current situation, and if you find yourself losing ground in a debate, don't use such nonsense to back up your claims. Either put up... or shut up.

Farewell, and God Bless.

Salaam, from
Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un