Terrorism, Dare We Define It?

Terrorism, Dare We Define It?
by Milo Clark

In warring on terrorism, who are we fighting?

Going into American history, we find that the Red-Coated British mercenaries
or Hessians fighting the ragtag American revolutionaries considered them to
be terrorists in the present sense. By hiding behind trees and sniping more
than confronting, they didn't fight fairly.

Then, by definition, is someone who doesn't fight fair a Terrorist? Who
defines "fight fair"? Usually, such definitions are a benefit of winning the
fight. Losers tend to be "terrorists" or "traitors" and winners come away
"freedom fighters" and "patriots." You say that is an old cliché? It is.

Is terrorism, then, simply a matter of definition? Those in power call those
out of power or hoping to take power "terrorists." Power carries with it the
ability to define, to name.

Or is terrorism violence by someone of whom I don't approve?

Ariel Sharon, Prime Minister of Israel, is an old man who, as a youth, was
active in establishing the Jewish state in what was then the
British-mandated territory of Palestine.

In the later years of World War II, the Zionists in Palestine were split
politically. Some wanted to do direct violence to British interests there.
Others wanted to hold off such aggressions until after the larger war was
over. History shows that extreme violence such as blowing up the King David
Hotel in Jerusalem, partially a British headquarters, took place. At the
time, the British considered that act "terrorism" and behaved accordingly.
Veterans of that act and their associates went on to become leaders of
Israel. Their efforts were then redefined as acts of "freedom fighters."

Recent years in Israel, once Palestine, display Israeli forces doing
violence to surviving and displaced Semites (a.k.a. Arabs) who hold grudges
for losing their lands. The Palestinians organized in several ways such as
Hamas, a group with a partiality toward violence similar to the Zionists who
blew up the King David Hotel, are called "terrorists" by the Israeli
government and those who support them such as President George W. Bush of
the United States of America.

Those who object to the Israeli acts of violence are labeled "Anti-Semites."
As the Arab Palestinians tend to be, if anything, more racially Semitic than
the majority of Jews in Israel, are the Israelis the genuine anti-Semites in
this situation? More definitions and control of definitions may be noticed.

Someone pointed out that people who wrap themselves with explosives and blow
themselves up to kill a few enemies are "terrorists" by definition. Those
who ride in F-16s, Apache helicopters, Humvees, APCs, tanks and other very
expensive weapons systems with the objective of killing Hamas leaders or
other Palestinians are not terrorists. Is this because those so equipped
control definitions? Or, if not definitions, per se, then control the media
through which reports are broadcast?

By extension to Iraq, with some people resisting American military efforts
to control their conquest, to occupy and to establish authority, definitions
are again called into play. The "Coalition" forces (meaning 90% American
military) are being attacked by "insurgents" and "terrorists." Killing
Iraqis who oppose them is killing people who are against American efforts to
establish "democracy." In this case, latter-day Americans are like the
British mercenaries or Hessians of the American Revolution. The Iraqi
insurgents, remnant Baathists, al Qaeda imports and local terrorists don't
fight fair.

Lacking in the American Revolution was an overt association with religion,
per se. Virtually all colonists were Protestant Christians so virtually the
same God was on every side.

Iraq, however, sits at the intersections of very ancient societies and
civilizations. Over the sands of Iraq, crossing and re-crossing the waters
of Tigris and Euphrates, etched on ruins on top of ruins overlaid with ruins
are the names of encyclopedias of religions. Prominent today are the sects
of Islam.

Long before governments in the sense of nation states were imposed mostly by
outsiders, order and civil society in these lands tended to center within
the religions then in dominance. During the years of Islamic times, a
critical force for civil society in Mid-East and Central Asia rested and
rests with sects called "Sufi" by those with little knowledge.

American ignorance or arrogance since occupying Iraq has alienated key
elements of both Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. Taking on both at once, as
in Sunni Fallujah and Shia southern Iraq, borders on insanity. Adding, as
recent days reveal, key leaders of several Sufi sects taking positions
questioning American acts of violence carries arrogance to some extreme most
likely to be measured by body bags sent home in the dark, and uncounted more
Iraqi deaths. Sufi influence extends far beyond Iraq's borders and deeply
within Islam as a whole. Sufi sects are the glue of Islamic societies
world-wide.

Islam, as a religion sharing roots with Christianity and Judaism, shares
other characteristics, too. There are, if anything, more sects, divisions,
schisms and other rifts within Islam.

A driving political force of Israel, for example, are the ultra-orthodox
sects of Judaism. The fortified settlements being erected on lands once
Palestinian or Syrian seized in 1967 and in other of the wars fought since
1948's imposition of Israel tend to be peopled by Jewish fundamentalists
advocating very strict and very limited interpretations of Torah and other
sacred books of Judaism.

Interestingly, largely American Christian sects aligning themselves with
these Judaic sects in terms of apocalyptic interpretations of scripture also
take very strict and very limited interpretations as their guidance. The
American president, George W. Bush, calls himself a "born again" Christian.
Those who share his views also hold to very strict interpretations of
scripture alleged to be the incontrovertible Word of God.

Within Islam, as within Judaism and Christianity, there are long traditions
attached to people who may be called "fundamentalists." In Islam, major
groups so-called have been or are named Khawarij, Salafi and Wahabi. They
claim to hark back to their visions or versions of early Islam, maybe its
first four hundred years. Their claims are not widely shared elsewhere in
Islam.

We are becoming somewhat familiar with Wahabi as a fundamentalist sect of
Islam due to its integration with the Saudi monarchy. Wahabi is the official
state religion of Saudi Arabia. The Taliban of Afghanistan were and are
tightly aligned with the Wahabi of Saudi Arabia.

Many allege that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda are primarily aligned with
Wahabi Islam. There is no doubt that there is some, perhaps a great deal of
overlap. Yet, bin Laden has looked elsewhere for much of his inspiration.
The Brotherhood of Egypt, in terms of modern history, has shaped more of bin
Laden's stated ideologies than Wahabi views, per se. No hairs need be spilt
much finer. Differences appear to come down to action choices.

Much like the Zionists of pre-Israel Palestine, some prefer direct violence,
others prefer to allow events and time to act in their behalf. After all,
when one believes in God, gives uncompromising faith to God, God will
deliver.

Over history and over time, that sentiment has been a characteristic of
fundamentalists of every persuasion.

George W. Bush sees no reason to apologize for what others may believe to be
arrogance or ignorance related to his choices for his Wars of Terror.
Whoops, should I say "Wars on Terror"?

Asked if he consults with this father, George H. W. Bush, he says, "No," God
is the Father to whom he turns for guidance.

May heaven (however defined) have mercy on us all!

http://www.swans.com/library/art10/mgc126.html


.

Relevant Pages

  • Terrorism, Dare We Define It?
    ... Going into American history, we find that the Red-Coated British mercenaries ... be terrorists in the present sense. ... rests with sects called "Sufi" by those with little knowledge. ... elements of both Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. ...
    (soc.culture.australian)
  • Terrorism, Dare We Define It?
    ... Going into American history, we find that the Red-Coated British mercenaries ... be terrorists in the present sense. ... rests with sects called "Sufi" by those with little knowledge. ... elements of both Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. ...
    (soc.culture.canada)
  • Terrorism, Dare We Define It?
    ... Going into American history, we find that the Red-Coated British mercenaries ... be terrorists in the present sense. ... rests with sects called "Sufi" by those with little knowledge. ... elements of both Sunni and Shia sects of Islam. ...
    (soc.culture.palestine)
  • The left should look in the mirror
    ... American power into terrorist regions like ... "America was targeted for attack," he told Congress on September ... the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for the September 11 ... Lake advised fellow Democrats to view the Khmer ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Miami Jihad? What Miami Jihad?
    ... What Miami Jihad? ... Planning to murder innocent Americans in the name of radical Islam ... ordinary American Muslims and could increase Islamophobic stereotyping ... not the terrorists these policies ...
    (alt.politics.bush)