Monday, December 09, 2002

Just What is a Terrorist Anyway?

I’ve been trying to figure this whole terrorist thing out since before 9/11, and I was given an inadvertent kick in the pants by my friend Sam Smith’s al Qaeda: Warriors or Criminals, and Why Does It Matter? blog.  So, just what the heck defines a terrorist anyway?

I figured a good place to start was a standard dictionary, so I grabbed a copy of Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition.

Terrorism

1. The act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, especially such use as a political weapon or policy.

2. The demoralization and intimidation produced in this way.

From this definition, a terrorist would therefore be a person who performs acts of terrorism.  No problem so far.

Except there’s a small problem with the definition.  If we took out the political dimension of the definition, nearly any bully, gang member, or syndicate member could be labeled a terrorist.  Including politics in the definition means that unions, with their ability to threaten economically debilitating strikes, could also be labeled terrorist organizations (they can use strikes as a political weapon to intimidate management to give them their way, after all).  And it could be construed to be applicable to the police, which, depending on the situation, just might be appropriate (think the desegregation of Ole Miss).  Hell, depending on fear generated by their political views and how hard they push them, some politicians might even qualify.  And I don’t think that’s even remotely appropriate.

So, I’d like to propose the following definition instead:

Terrorism

The use of violence or threats against civilians to demoralize, intimidate, subjugate, or destroy, especially such use as a political weapon or policy.

Notice it’s quite a bit less ambiguous than the original Webster’s definition – this definition talks specifically of violence or threats of violence on civilians.  I’d expand the definition of terrorist slightly beyond “an individual who performs terrorism” to include members of an organization which performs terrorism, because it’s not realistic to believe that someone who’s part of al-Qaeda doesn’t support it’s goals and methods.

What this definition means is the following – attacking civilians with the goal of making them live in fear is unambiguously terrorism, and people who perform these acts are terrorists.  Attacking politicians may or may not be terrorism, depending on the goals of the person performing the act.  For example, it would be unreasonable to call a deranged, lone assassin a terrorist, but someone who kills a politician with the goal of intimidating the politician’s supporters very well could be a terrorist.  Attacking military personnel on base or maneuvers, however, is simply not terrorism.  The military’s job is to put itself into harm’s way, and being shot at by people who hate you, your culture, your government, your religion, etc. is part of the job description.

So, by this definition, the 9/11 hijackers were most definitely terrorists, as is the entire al-Qaeda organization and all of its members.  However, if the individuals who fired on the Marines on maneuvers in Kuwait weren’t al-Qaeda members, they wouldn’t qualify as terrorists, and I don’t feel they should (the Marines were carrying live ammunition and killed several of the attackers, as I recall).  The recent assassination of the USAID diplomat in Jordan might or might not qualify as terrorism, depending on the motives of the person involved.

Other groups that qualify as terrorists, however, likely include those members of Earth First responsible for spiking trees in an effort to intimidate and injure loggers.  And let’s not forget those “legitimate” governments that use their militaries to enforce their decrees, or to subjugate their populations.  This category includes such governments as the South African government before the end of apartheid, and it just might apply to the Israeli government too.  Arial Sharon’s government orders the use of violence, specifically the destruction of homes, on the families of Palestinian suicide bombers with the openly stated goal of intimidating the Palestinian people into stopping their own extremists.  Convincing the Palestinians to stop their own extremists is a laudable goal, but assuming guilt on behalf of the terrorist’s family is violence of a different type, terrorism of a different thread.  The Palestinians are just as guilty as the Israeli government, and there is enough blame, and terrorism, to cover both sides in the debris and blood of the innocent people they’ve killed and the lives they’ve destroyed.

I have to admit that this definition isn’t perfect – I don’t know what to do about attacks on police officers, who are nearly as able to defend themselves as military personnel, but whose job descriptions don’t inherently contain the risk of violent death at the hands of your nation’s enemies.  And as I mentioned above, political figures are also in the gray areas.

But perhaps the biggest “flaw” in my definition is that terrorism becomes inherently dependent on the motives of the person committing the acts, not just the acts themselves.  Sure, major attacks like Oklahoma City, the World Trade Center, and Black September are so horrific and huge to be unmistakable as terrorist attacks, even without a letter stating motive, but the smaller, more personal attacks can’t be labeled terrorism automatically.  My definition requires that we have proof, some determined reason for any given act of violence to be called terrorism.  It means we can’t have a knee-jerk reaction to every violent act in the world and label it “terrorism.”

Actually, now that I think about it, that’s not a flaw at all.

Tuesday, December 03, 2002

Violence and Fundamentalism in Religion

There are several things wrong with the following statement: “Members of Bush team take hard line against Islam.” The first is that it’s the headline of a Denver Post version of a Washington Post article published on December 1, 2002. The second is the word “Islam,” because it is totally inappropriate for a secular society based on Christianity to take a “hard line” against an entire religion.

But what makes me the most uncomfortable is some of the content in the article, and the hypocrisy that is evident in the comments of several Bush advisors.

Kenneth Adelman, a member of Bush’s Pentagon Defense Policy Board, is quoted as saying “The more you examine [Islam], the more militaristic it seems. After all, it’s founder, Mohammed, was a warrior, not a peace advocate like Jesus.” And activist Paul Weyrich is quoted saying “Islam is at war against us. But one thing that concerned me before September 11 and concerns me even more now is [Bush’s] constant promotion of Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance just like Judaism or Christianity. It is neither.”

Oh my Gods.

You know, for a religion that was started by a “warrior,” Islam is remarkably peaceful. Sure, there are conflicts between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. And the Koran does allow violence to defend oneself, one’s family, and the faith. At least Islam is honest about it – Christianity was founded by a peace-loving man, and just look at all the violence accomplished by Christianity’s followers. Protestant-Catholic conflicts have been at least as horrible as any Shi’a and Sunni conflicts. And for people who are supposed to turn the other cheek rather than respond to provocation (even provocation which threatens the faith or their lives), Christianity has an established history of crusades and bloody takeovers of non-Christian lands and people.

But the worst example of hypocrisy is the following: Eliot Cohen, another member of the Pentagon advisory board, said “Nobody would like to think that a major world religion has a deeply aggressive and dangerous strain in it – a strain often excused or misrepresented in the name of good feelings.” I know Cohen is referring to Islam, but it could apply to Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Shintoism, Mormonism, Neo-Paganism, even atheism. The only faith I can’t seem to find fault with is Buddhism, and that’s probably because I’m not familiar enough with it. Let’s go through these one by one.

Judaism in Israel has a branch that is willing to assassinate its own leaders, kill Palestinians, steal lands from people who have lived on them for hundreds of years, and wants to kick all Palestinians out of the West Bank regardless of the consequences. Christianity justifies internal anti-Semitism by blaming all Jewish people for the death of Jesus, provides metaphorical “get out of Hell free cards” which justify any behavior up to and including premeditated murder to anyone who is “born-again,” and blacklists entire groups of people with it’s irrational responses to human sexuality. Hinduism’s militant side attacks Muslims and Christians on trains and in their places of worship, simply because they are of a different faith. Shintoism was used to justify Japanese aggression and racial superiority during World War II, and it continues to bolster an often corrupt, racist, sexist, and disability-despising society. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints only allowed members of other races to join in the last several decades, ending a hundred years of institutional racism. In addition, a large percentage of Mormon’s whom I’ve met seem to poison their relationships with non-Mormons through a superiority complex that justifies lying, cheating, and otherwise stomping on non-Mormons in everyday life (I can think of a few of the 20 or so Mormon’s I’ve known who break this rule). Neo-Paganism has it’s problems as well, including a history of scam artists who prey on the physically or mentally ill, an unfortunate association with Nazism and the neo-Nazi movements, and a fixation on Christianity and Christians as the ultimate evil. But let’s not forget atheism – I can’t help but point out the superiority complex that so many atheists have with respect to anyone who believes in anything beyond simple, mundane humanity – they’re as bad as the “born-again” Christians, militant Muslims, wacked-out Mormons, and fundamentalist Pagans.

Ultimately, though, the article attributes a sentiment to Eliot Cohen which I completely agree with: “…the enemy of the United States is not terrorism ‘but militant Islam.’” If there were no militant Muslims, then September 11 wouldn’t have happened, because the particular fundamentalist ideology which gave rise to the terrorists wouldn’t have existed. But I’d expand this a bit – the enemy of civilization is fundamentalism.

Christian fundamentalists justify unethical behavior and murder because they KNOW they’re going to Heaven, regardless of what their actions are. Mormon fundamentalists justify racism, unethical and immoral behavior toward non-Mormons, child abuse, and often abusive plural marriages because it’s their interpretation of “the revealed word of God.” Islamist fundamentalists justify mass murder in the name of Allah because contradictory statements attributed to Mohammed are used by self-proclaimed so-called Imams with political agendas that have nothing to do with Islam. Hindu fundamentalists see Islam as a threat, so they lash out at innocent Muslims and so inflame the fires of hatred in Kashmir and north-west India. Jewish fundamentalists want to own all of Palestine because it was given to them by God 4000 years ago, and if murdering the Palestinians or driving them into Jordan is the only way to do it, then by God, so be it (it worked for the Americans with respect to the Native Americans, after all…). Neo-Pagan fundamentalists attach themselves to anti-Christian or racist agendas, perpetuating sectarian and racial conflict. Atheistic fundamentalists want to treat the mental disorder that is faith.

And let’s not forget the liberal fundamentalists who are willing to sacrifice human lives in order to stop all animal drug testing and the conservative fundamentalists who are willing to sacrifice the entire natural world in the name of personal wealth and convenience. Not all fundamentalism is based in religion – it is based in an inability to be flexible, pragmatic, and tolerant.

We must fight the battle against Islamist fundamentalists that is the current incarnation of the war against terrorism. But we must also fight the war against fundamentalism, for that war will ultimately decide the success or failure of civilization in general, regardless whether it’s Islamic, Judeo-Christian, or secular.