| In which the editorialist throws an awful lot of vague and overly precise words against the wall, hoping that some stick...and incidentally cover up the very ugly stains on the wallpaper. |
We're still determined to mince words even as the global corpse count climbs, in hope of keepIng our pet krazed killers off the list...
This definition would cover psychopaths mutilating hapless victims for immediate pleasure; husbands abusing their wives to exact future compliance; and landlords, criminals and political organizations threatening larger populations in pursuing their divergent goals.
Clearly, this definition is too broad to be useful. These divergent phenomena deserve either different names or at least recognition as sub-types, e.g., psychopathic, family and political terrorisms. Emulating Uncle Sam, I focus here single-mindedly on political terrorism, the most controversial sub-type.
How does one define that sub-type? Unfortunately, even this is not an easy task. My academic peers, as divided as international officials, have generated over a hundred different definitions. Fortunately, most disagreements are over details and semantics. There is some agreement that political terrorism's core elements include 'deliberately physically attacking non-combatants in pursuing political goals, even if the goals are just'. This working definition can help in analysing the complexities of political terrorism.
Firstly, are freedom fighters not terrorists? Those deliberately targeting non-combatants would be considered Islamic fascisti under this definition. Freedom fighters facing stronger armies often start targeting non-combatants and justify their repugnant means by arguing the justness of their goal. Under this definition though, ends do not justify means. Thus, many resistance movements globally, e.g., in Afghanistan, India, Pakistain and Colombia, engage in terrorism.
While Uncle Sam may think otherwise, the Mujahideen of the first Afghan war were as much Islamic fascisti as those of the second Afghan war since they often targeted non-combatants. However,
we can't all be heroes. Somebody has to sit on the curb and applaud when they go by...
this is merely a judgment on the means and not the ultimate aims of these groups around the globe. As the ANC's transformation in South Africa reveals, terrorist groups with worthy goals can win international support by abandoning terrorism. The Arab Spring shows that freedom fighters can dislodge tyrants without not only terrorism but also major violence. Conversely, terrorism has a sorry success rate to date.
Secondly, do states commit terrorism? If they inadvertently kill non-combatants during combat, they do not commit terrorism but they could be guilty of war crimes, an equally serious offence, if they do not follow the international laws for protecting non-combatants during war. Cases where low-level soldiers deliberately target non-combatants would constitute individual terrorism and possibly state war crimes.
State terrorism only occurs when brass hats materially support Islamic fascisti or order soldiers to deliberately target non-combatants. Thus, the civilian casualties caused inadvertently by the Americans in Iraq during combat cannot be considered terrorism, though some of them may constitute war crimes. However,
there's more than one way to skin a cat...
the torture of prisoners, duly approved by top Bush-era officials, certainly constituted state terrorism
... any action taken by a non-Moslem state that constrains the violent impulses of Moslems or their allies ...
as did the Hiroshima bombing, probably the most destructive single terrorist attack ever.
Thirdly, who is responsible for the thousands killed by terrorism in Pakistain? Some people hold the Pak and American governments culpable arguing that their policies provoke forces of Evil into terrorism. 'Provocation' is actually a legal term which can be used to mitigate certain crimes. British women who kill highly abusive husbands while facing further direct trauma can claim provocation in defence, but merely to request a lighter sentence.
Furthermore, they are not given a licence to just kill anyone in retaliation nor can relatives of even murdered women invoke provocation in killing murderer husbands.
Given these stringent requirements, can someone from Fata, even if he or she unfortunately loses a non-combatant relative to American or Mighty Pak Army action, justifiably claim provocation if he or she travels all the way to Islamabad or Bloody Karachi to exact Dire Revenge™ on non-combatants instead of taking the shorter journey to the perpetrators and courts? Clearly, from a criminal justice viewpoint, legal culpability lies with those planning, executing and materially supporting terrorism.
True, beyond the realms of criminal justice, there is the question of political responsibility. Viewed so, both governments have indirectly contributed to terrorism. However,
it was a brave man who first ate an oyster...
that political culpability cannot lessen the legal culpability of terrorists. There are more sensible avenues available for protesting bad government policies, such as peaceful protests and courts.
Thus, it is ironic to see a populist Pak politician linking terrorism primarily to drone attacks when he chooses for himself instead the legal (and personally safer!) option of peaceful protests against drone attacks.
There are appropriate responses to inappropriate acts and there are inappropriate ones. Those committing inappropriate responses deserve appropriate punishment, like those committing the original inappropriate act. Thus, the only basis for peace with the TTP should be their unconditional surrender and submission to justice.
Finally, is terrorism linked to particular religions? Biased analysts claim that though not all Mohammedans are terrorists, almost all Islamic fascisti are Mohammedan. Facts easily disprove this misrepresentation. While Al Qaeda has attracted the most attention since it targets the West, highly egregious terrorism has been committed more frequently by others in recent history. Some even committed it in the name of religion, e.g., the Lord's Resistance Army in Africa routinely attacks villages, chopping men's limbs, killing thousands, raping women in front of their families and keeping them as mistresses.
Others were committed in the name of nationalism and ideology, e.g., the Rwandan, ex-Yugoslavian and Cambodian civilian massacres. However,
Switzerland makes more than cheese...
these barbarisms do not reflect the original teachings of those religions or ideologies, just as Al Qaeda's barbarism does not reflect Islamic teachings. In Islam, whoever kills an innocent person is though as he killed all mankind. Non-combatants were granted amnesty during the 630 AD Mecca conquest. Sick minds, not religions, produce terrorism.
Hence, religious terrorism is an oxymoron which should be discarded.
Thus, an objective analysis of terrorism requires a clear definition, which may not suit major powers. So, under Bush, the American definition degenerated into 'whoever we consider one'. Second, it must be grounded in facts, not biases. Third, it requires differentiating between immediate and indirect causes. To date, these simple requirements have eluded global policymakers.