Terrorism Less Deceptively Defined
Quick test. Which of the following were acts of terrorism: a) Al-Qaida’s bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, which killed 17 American sailors; b) Hezbollah’s raid on an Israeli military patrol in July 2006, killing three soldiers and capturing two, and triggering a 34-day war; c) The Hamas ambush last week of an Israeli patrol on the Gaza border, killing one Israeli soldier; d) Attacks on American troops in Iraq, which have killed about 3,500 soldiers (not including some 800 nonhostile deaths); e) None of the above.
The answer is (e) — none of the above. It may be impossible to agree on a single definition of terrorism. It’s easier to agree on what terrorism isn’t. Attacking military personnel or military installations isn’t terrorism. It’s an act of war. This definition would hold even according to the U.S. Code, which states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”
Civilians are the common denominator. But neither government nor the press follows that definition. They have no definition. They improvise according to prejudice and expediency. As Caleb Carr, author of “The Lessons of Terror” (2002) noted, “almost every agency of the U.S. government that deals with the threat of terrorism maintains its own definition of that phenomenon. More surprising still, among these definitions, no two are identical or even, in some cases, easy to reconcile with one another. The same phenomenon applies to America’s academic and intellectual communities.” The nonsensically named “war on terror” is supposedly the central conflict of our time. Yet as a nation we don’t agree or even discuss much what “terrorism” really is.
It’s ignorance by necessity. There is no way to have an honest discussion of terrorism without quickly discovering that “Islamists” are among its most recent and rather selective practitioners, while Westerners have been its more systematic enthusiasts and euphemists. Any reading of Richard Wright, Maya Angelou, James Baldwin, Carter G. Woodson, Frederick Douglass (among other black voices) and, obviously, innumerable slave narratives, clarifies why Cornel West derided the notion that the 9/11 attacks brought terror to “the homeland.” Terror — systematic, state-sponsored, genocidal — was the daily bane of black existence until a few decades ago.
Defining terrorism is contentious only for those who want to hide from the implications of definition, which to me is simple: Violent acts directed primarily at civilian targets, or that produce primarily civilian casualties, are terrorism. So are violent acts directed at any imprisoned individual, soldiers or guerrillas included — especially those held illegally, without charge, which makes Guantanamo’s detainees hostages, not prisoners. The favored Israeli tactic of legitimizing mass civilian killings, as in Gaza last week, by saying that the attacks were directed primarily at “terrorists” is bogus. Whatever the rationale, civilians are deliberately targeted when the civilian casualties bloodily outnumber noncivilian casualties, making those attacks acts of terrorism no different from suicide bombers blowing up restaurants. The Marines’ massacre of civilians at Haditha in Iraq, the American military’s deliberate bombing of civilian targets in Vietnam, the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (neither of which had significant military value), the British and American razing of European cities in World War II — they all fit the classic definition of terrorism. State terror’s apologists, Westerners especially, love to say that in “total war” there are no innocent civilians. That’s a rationalization to ease consciences.
It’s equally necessary to dispense with such bromides as “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” It’s never who the perpetrators are or even what their goals are. It’s what they do. There is no such thing as a Palestinian or Iraqi “freedom fighter” who shoots up Yeshivas, blows up malls and mosques, murders passers-by. Those, like the 9/11 attacks, are unquestionable, indefensible acts of terrorism. But if terror is also coercion and deliberate violence against those who can’t defend themselves, waterboarding, or what George W. Bush, our apologist-in-chief of torture, calls “specialized interrogation procedures,” is terrorism in its most distilled — because utterly controlled — form.
“But ‘terrorism’ no longer means terrorism,” to quote Robert Fisk, the longest-serving Western journalist in the Middle East. “It is not a definition. It is a political contrivance. ‘Terrorists’ are those who use violence against the side that is using the word.” Until we get past the contrivance, using the word “terrorism” is itself an act of belligerence. Its false distinctions conceal our own terrorism. It absolves its perpetrators. And it makes us complicit in the duplicity, if not the terrorism, for standing united behind the contrivance.
Tristam is a News-Journal editorial writer. Reach him at ptristam@att.net or through his personal Web site at www.pierretristam.com.
© 2008 News-Journal Corporation
Terrorists are people who blow up other people, then lose their fight. The people who blow up other people and win are called prime ministers.
The “war on terror” was one of the best money-making phrases ever invented by the repugs. Several years ago, Matt Lauer asked bush if it’s possible to win the war on terror and bush said NO. Holy crawford ranch, did the crap ever hit the fan when uncle dick heard this. The next day, bush put out a statement that clearified what he thought he said. “What I meant to say is yes, we can win the war on terror.” His first statement was one of the very few pieces of truth he’s ever spoken. We cannot ever win the war on terror. Nothing, not even pre-emption, can stop a neighbor from killing a neighbor or any terrorist from attacking our country. The war on terror only benefits the war profiteering military contractors and oil companies.
As a smarter person than I said, “The car bomb: the poor man’s airstrike.”
Common themes with (what the US Briatin and Israel) call terrorism
1) It doesn’t kill very many civilians. Take the 2006 Lebabnon war: Hezbollah killed 45 Israeli civiilans; the converntional armed response on the side of justice and freedom or whatever bullshit you want to call it claimed 1100 civilian lives. The 9/11 attacks cost an unbearable 3000 US lives but thankfully only 550,000 Iraqi lives.
2) Conventional capitalist war is heinously expensive. Capitalism cannot do anything efficiently. For example, 9/11 cost the plotters the price of less than 2 dozen air fares and a bunch of box cutters. The US response has cost it $3 trillion.
As a tax payer and a humanitarian, give me terrorists any time.
Anyone want to talk about the American genocide of 350,000 Iraqi children caused by the sanctions…slow genocide is still genocide.
All acts of violence can be considered terrorism. The invasion and continuing occupation of Iraq is an act of terrorism. But not all terrorism involves violence. Look at the BushCo fear-mongering as an example “homegrown” terrorism.
It’s all about changing definitions. That’s their MO. I’m middle aged so my examples only go back so far. Here’s one; “no net loss of wetlands” then when in office, change the definition of “wetlands”! The answers to most of todays perplexing questions lie in the definitions that are being assumed (or avoided) like what “terrorism” really is. Tristam hit the nail on the head. What other assumptions are we making and how can we bring attention to them? I’ve been waiting a long time for this article, thank you Pierre.
_ W O W _ = WAR ON WORDS
It would appear that the US government did operate on a
new concept of terrorism after 9/11. If we go back to the
“Axis of Evil” premise, the three nations targeted for
pre-emptive strikes or provocation for war, depending on your historical interpretation of a blitzkrieg type operation,were Iraq, North Korea and Iran. The only
thing they had in common was that they MIGHT have wmd.
The US did not concern itself with nations that did have nuclear weapons,such as Pakistan and Inida; nor the ones that clearly do not. So terrorism became based on yes, no or maybe. The “maybe nations” all poor, all proud, all dictatorships,were the basis of war; billions of dollars of
illusive,anti-missile contracts; billions of dollars of wasted effort. Under the old established rules of terrorism and counter-terrorist measures, North Korea should have been exempt: their last act of state sponsered terrorism was in 1979 when the beautiful NK female spy blew up a plane. She was forgiven, released from prison and has lived comfortably in Seoul for years. As for Iraq, it was well known that they had not been able to shoot down one American plane in the no fly zone since the first Gulf War; hardly a glowing arsenal of wmd. So, Pierre, you are right. terror has simply become a convenient word to do what you want to. That does not change the fact, of course, there have always been terrorists and they will never be completely eradicated. That is why “intelligence” has to be used to track them down; not bombs. The successful counter-terror operations rarely make into the public newspapers. So I have been told. Have we lost the difference between
the terrorists and ourselves?
“Violent acts directed primarily at civilian targets, or that produce primarily civilian casualties, are terrorism.”
Like Tazering unarmed, nonviolent citizens who have broken no law? Like imprisoning 1 out of 4 Black American males between the ages of 18-34? Like Saudi Arabia threatening Tony Blair with “terrorist” attacks if he continued his corruption investigation?
Isn’t “you’re either with us - the most deadly country on Earth with a reputation for blowing up stuff - or against us?” a terrorist declaration?
And what about economic terrorism, like blacking out California during the summer in order to force the State into overpriced, long term energy contracts?
Tristram might have pointed out that Bush’s Secretary of Education during his first term called the National Education Association a “terrorist” organization. That’s the kind of verbal promiscuity politicians love Fortunately, no NEA leaders are behind wire at Guantanamo…I hope.
If this is indeed the definition of terrorism, then it seems to me George Butch and Dick Shame-me are the biggest terrorist operation working against the US today. No wonder they haven’t been impeached. They need to be sent to a terrorist detention center (without benefit of habeas corpus, of course).
Hell, it just occurred to me–impeachment is for elected officials, which they are not. Their positions were gained via coup d’etat. Now it all makes sense.
Unfortunately, the heat under the kettle was increased ever-so-slowly– so the frogs in the kettle are doomed to stew.
I bet they love to sit around and laugh at us, while they read these blogs.
Maybe George can even attempt an occassional pithy retort, like “na-na na-na na-na!”
Terrorist or terrorism are just terms of flexibility that can be manipulated to fit anyone not in line. And boy!, does it instill fear and elicit support for our strong leaders.
If the roles of the US and Iran were completely reversed, we would be the insurgents and our most dedicated and passionate defenders would be the terrorists. It’s all a matter of perspective!
So, we have a classical definition of terrorism - violence or its threat to coerce or intimidate a civilian population. If violence is against governments it is an act of war.
It is time to change the dialogue - We must work to “remove violence or its threat as an instrument of organizational policy.”
You have to watch out for all the or/ands and other “weasel words”
“The term ‘terrorism’ means an activity that involves an act dangerous to property and appears to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation”
Otherwise known as PROTESTING. “opps… While trying to influence the government, the protesters stepped on a flower..that is DANGEROUS TO PROPERTY. THEY ARE THERFORE TERRORISTS
Can also apply to the USA bombing any other country, or even placing its military at someones border.
Terrorism is violence for political purposes.
Using war to change the Middle East is terrorism.
Are the suicide shooters in our schools, churches, shopping malls and places of employment terrorists? What about the NRA and domestic and international arms dealers? Are gang-bangers terrorists? What about drug dealers or sex trafficers?
If the victims are terrorized, its terrorism. ‘Nuff said.
But even Monkey Boy laid out some definitions in his Executive Order 13224:
” (d) the term “terrorism” means an activity that –
(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended –
(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(C) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”
Wow! Sounds like self incrimination on all counts. And a violent act on infrastructure is also a war crime. You know, like when we bombed Iraqi electric and water facilities . . . twice. Got a twofer on that one. So since its a crime to give money to groups committing terrorist acts (Patriot Act, HR3162, UNSC Res1373 & EO13224) and our government has committed terrorist acts, then it must be a crime to give money to the government. Have you paid your terrori…. um, taxes yet?
To Truthmonger:
The war on Terror CAN be won!
By dropping enough fresh drinking water and palates of food, and seeds for next year and tubing to irrigate and instructions to make rain collection barrels out of tree trunks.
The war of Terror is being won by 500 pound bombs and economic depravation and brute policing of starving and explosively threatened populations.
cactuspie: I wrote a comment about a week ago with the same conclusion you just made, but then decided to delete it.
Yes, I am sure that because I pay my federal taxes that I am a supporter of state sponsored terrorism. And now that I’ve said that so plainly I can’t see that it can possibly be refuted.
This issue is of the utmost importance. If terrorism isn’t strictly defined, or better yet, erased altogether in favor of maintaining the legal status of ’soldier’ or ‘criminal’, then we have signed our own arrest (death?) warrants.
http://www.artsnorth.com/dhoffay-portfolio/writing/global-terror.html
“The term ‘terrorism’ means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.”
This definition of terrorism could be applied to the behaviors of most major international corporations - particularly the ones that contribute large amounts of money to “affect the conduct of a government”…….
Speaking of definition of terrorism, there was Oregon Senate bill 742 of 2003, written and proposed by the Republican chairman of the state senate judiciary committee, which seemed to expand the definition of terrorism to include things like obstructing traffic and engaging in economic boycotts, and planning to do so.
Penalty: 25 years to life, with 25 years without parole mandatory minimum.
That particular bill did not become law due to adverse publicity, but it was no joke: some legislators seriously wanted it to become law.
Here is this charming example of Orwellian expansion of definition of the word “terrorism”:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/03reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0742.intro.html
— excerpt from Oregon senate bill 742 (2003)—
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
Section 1.
(1) A person commits the crime of terrorism if
the person knowingly plans, participates in or carries out any act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt:
(a) The free and orderly assembly of the inhabitants of the State of Oregon;
(b) Commerce or the transportation systems of the State of Oregon; or
(c) The educational or governmental institutions of the State of Oregon or its inhabitants.
(2) A person commits the crime of terrorism if the person conspires to do any of the activities described in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) A person may not be convicted of terrorism except upon the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or upon confession in open court.
(4)(a) A person convicted of terrorism shall be punished by imprisonment for life.
(b) When a person is convicted of terrorism under this section, the court shall order that the person be confined for a minimum of 25 years without possibility of parole . . .
—— end excerpt —–
The War on Poverty, and the
The War on Drugs, and the
The War on Terror,
just war on and on,
till war war out.
That’s when we’ll try some Peace on.
Back in the bad old days, I was taught that a “terrorist” was someone who carried out acts of violence (inflicting grievious bodily harm or death) against non-combatants for the pupose of persuading the populace to engage in some activity they had a right to refrain from, or refrain from some activity they had a right to engage in, in order for the terrorists to achieve for some political end, and was characterized by randomness, brutality or exceptional cruelty.
So even if it were some alleged “terrorist” who targeted the WTC & the Pentagon, those places being hubs of military, intelligence and corporate power, could reasonably be viewed as legitimate military targets.
Real terrorists would have attacked Disneyland, not the Pentagon.
There’s a keen difference between terrorist and guerilla.
When American colonists took cover behind trees instead of flanking out in an orderly rank and file formation, they were not “terrorists.”
But when Americans bomb a country killing civilians in order to force a “regime change,” that certainly IS terrorism.
Currently the working definition seems to be “anyone we don’t like who does anything we don’t like.”
Not my idea of what the law should be.
Liberty & Justice,
SJ
ww.w.spartacusjones.com
The Hollow State authoritarian governments: the US, Great Britain, Australia, still linked and trailing the broken fetters of the departed conscripts in the Coalition of the Wilting, seek to broaden the definition of “terrorism” to include politically “afflicting the comfortable”.
The abominable and reprehensible “H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″ is a testimonial to the bipartisan will to advance this goal. Hooray for our side!
Bush and Cheney can travel Worldwide without any fear of Terrorist.
Do Terrorist only kill innocent civilians?
Terrorism, as I understand it, is the use of fear and/or violence by a person, group, or government designed to coerce submission to the political, economic, or religious agenda of a person, group, or government.
That sort of sounds like the job description of our covert ‘intelligence’ agencies for the last fifty years.
The fact the neo cons’ “war on terror” is as John Pilger, a great newsman writing for the British media points out a “war on democracy.” That’s what it really is.
The objective definition of terrorism in the Oxford Dictionary of Current English is “organized violence.” Now who other than the Gandi types of this world among those running state affairs isn’t just that?