Before I start my blog, I would like to state that I am by no means pro-9/11!!!
When the attacks of 9/11 happened people were so quick in saying that it was terrorism! We had never really used that term as much before the attacks in 2001. Almost everyone defines it as terrorism because the people who carried out the attacks, the terrorists, were intentionally targetting innocent civilians. Fair enough.
Let us take a look at this.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/01/congresswoman-shot-by-gunman-in-arizona.html
A gunman shot the Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, allegedly, who in fact is also a civilian, and yet news reports call it a shooting rampage. Why?
Stepping back almost 5 years, Virginia Tech shootings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/us/16cnd-shooting.html?pagewanted=all
A shooting rampage again? Although the gunman was targetting students and teachers who were at that point civilians.
Let us go back 3 days.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/opinion/iftikhar-leave-aghanistan/index.html?hpt=us_mid
A US solider, in Afghanistan, decides to go door-to-door and shoot 16 innocent civilians, including 8-9 children, 3 women, and our president says, "I offer my condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives, and to the people of Afghanistan, who have endured too much violence and suffering. This incident is tragic and shocking, and does not represent the exceptional character of our military and the respect that the United States has for the people of Afghanistan."
So, the war, which is technically a "just war" is carried out by targetting innocent children and women?
What was the reasoning for this war, which made it a "just" one? Oh, overthrowing the taliban, which the US did, and capturing Bin-Laden, which also is a done deal. So why are we still there fighting a "just war" by killing people who have no ties to the attacks of 9/11 at all? In the link above it states that because of this just(?) war, 2,000 American troops, and more than 14,000 innocent Afghani civilians have died! How is this just by any means? Why do we not call this act, along with the above two (out of many many others which are too many to list in this blog) acts of terrorism? Just like 9/11, the targets were innocent civilians who were doing nothing but their every day duties of being citizens of this world? What justifies these acts done by us, against our own people and Afghanis, on the other hand what sets 9/11 apart? Is it the fact that these are American citizens we are talking about in the above cases?
The soldier's case get's even more interesting. Days before this incident, Qurans were burned by Americans for some apparent reasons? And yet, today news agencies publish this kinds of articles.
Some "suspect" that alcohol may have played a role in this incident.
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/world/afghani-delegation-attacked-at-killing-site/story-e6frg1p3-1226299139385
Soma "suspect" or "are sure" that the soldier suffered from injuries.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/03/14/bad-psychiatric-policy-and-afghan-massacre/
While reading the artciles I came across people commenting things such as, "Muslims deserve this, they did 9/11" and also things like "I think our soldirers are trying to send us a message".
Personally, I agree with the second person. I think the troops overseas are tired of fighting a war that has ended almost a year ago. It is not just anymore.
Interestingly, 2minutes before I posted this blog, The Washington Post published this "article", which is only one line.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-official-solder-accused-of-killing-afghan-civilians-flown-to-kuwait/2012/03/14/gIQAGjtoCS_story.html
Conclusively, I just have one question. What is terrorism? How is it justified? Does it make a difference if it's you who does it, or against you it is done? I do not know the answer to these, but it sure looks like the case in these situations. Either way, it does not seem to matter because our actions are almost always justified, which seems a little ridiculous to me, and yet very sad. After all, we are fighting a just war.
Sona, you raise an interesting set of questions. I think most theorists would include both (a) directly targeting innocent civilians and (b) to achieve political ends in a definition of terrorism. This might help distinguish the attacks of 9/11 from a shooting rampage, but adding (b) will not eliminate the problems you identify.
ReplyDeleteAnother angle would be to consider what Noam Chomsky calls "state terrorism."
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_terrorism
ReplyDeleteWell, can't we say that the shooting of the Congresswoman was political in a way? If you think about it, he did intentionally target a politician, maybe for her certain ideas, maybe he did not want her in office, yet he targetted innocent people too. Therefore, (a) and (b) could be applied to this case. So in a way, he did involve himself in an act that can be labelled as more than a shooting rampage.
ReplyDeleteOr even the case on Sunday in Afghanistan. The solider, more than likely, was trying to send a political message, maybe a message encouraging a withdrawal from there. Targetting civilians (a) would mean a drastic Afghan anger against Americans and therefore, a wave calling for a leave for American troops, which satisfies the (b)part of the equation. Yet, this is not called terrorism, just a tragic incident.
Overall, I just want to know the reason why the term terrorism is used in cases of foreign acts agaisnt us, but not vice versa. Very thought provoking for me.
Or maybe moving away from America itself. Huzbullah and Hamas are said to be terrorist organizations and well recognized by the world. Even the PLO is categorized as a terrorist organization by the US and UK. They are all known for their suicide bombings in Israel. However, when Israelis do(did 2006,2008, ...) similar acts in West Bank and Gaza against Palestinians such organziations with very radical and extremist points of views are not reported as terrorist organizations. I just do not see the world's viewpoint in such cases when the exact same is done on both sides, yet, some are looked at as victims of terror and others are just seen as cruel and radical jihadists who hate the West. The recognition of terrorism should be global and unconditional in my opinion, while we do the exact opposite. We define terrorism only when our ideas or interests, beliefs (mostly political and economic) are seen to be at stake.
ReplyDeleteWhat you've pointed out is that the term is not neutral, but highly politicized in its definition and application. The question you're asking is: how is this term useful, if it seems to be used only to demonize enemies? Another question to ask: if terrorism is political at its core, then can there be a viable anti-terror strategy that doesn't address the political issues that seem to give rise to it?
ReplyDeleteIt is probably the ethicist in me, but my preferred way to handle the definitional issue would be to insist that all acts that meet the definition be called terrorism rather than not to use the term because it is not being applied consistently. Nevertheless, the inconsistency that Sona points to is striking and morally troubling.
ReplyDeleteI think the part of the definition that is most important is the intent of the action. Killing is killing, no matter which way you slice it. However, we can distinguish different types of killing. Homicide is different from genocide, which is different from suicide, which is different from terrorism. They are all killing, but with different intent. I think that the politician would be some type of homicide with political motivations. The 16 Afgani killings would be some sort of misled and possible stress induced mentally unsound massacre with possibly no reason. Terrorism on the other hand is done for both political reasons and mainly to instill terror and fear into your opponent by means of slaughtering innocent people that have no motivational connection to you. Personally I would associate this with larger scale bombings that kill multiple to many people. It all comes down to intent. I would certainly consider 9/11 a terrorist act. They wanted us to be afraid.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, as you have brought up, this definition has been twisted to umbrella a large amount of crimes, of which they may not be terrorism. This is leverage for politicians to do what they need to run their agenda.
I'd have to say that the term "terrorism" is made up. At one point it may have been used and defined as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes." (which I took off of dictionary.com) and we've moved away from that. We've moved to a definition more close to "any act or chance of an act, regardless of how slim, of violence committed by a group." Look at the shootings at Fort Hood and the ones listed in your own blog post. I would have to say that a defining factor in terrorism, even in our big brother-esqu society, is that it's perpetrated by a group or a person affiliated with a group with, a bit less importantly, political goals.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Doctor Metres implication that the United States and other "legitimate governments" get away with things that could be defined as terrorism. But it is the winners that write history after all.