I immediately recalled the horrific events that transpired in an Amish school house several years ago.
I remembered when news broke of a brazen shooting in the Holocaust museum in Washington, D.C. and how I wondered what can cause a man to hate like that.
I also flashed back to my sophomore year of college, sitting in the lounge at school, watching as the surreal Virginia Tech shooting unfolded. The Virginia Tech attack particularly affected us as students, hearing about the massacre of 33 people just like us.
Then, news of the execution of John Allen Muhummad today brought back memories of the D.C. sniper shootings and the way a whole portion of the nation was stricken with absolute fear.
The list goes on, and I couldn't help but notice that I never remember hearing "terrorist" or "terrorism" in connection with these events or those who perpetrated them. I wonder, is there some sort of rule of thumb that determines whether vicious attacks like these are either terrorism or just your typical, plain, old, run-of-the-mill mass-murder?
Certainly we can't say that it is the number of victims which crosses the line into terrorism territory; the Virginia Tech shooter killed 33 people in a matter of hours, but wasn't deemed a terrorist.
Nor are we led to believe that targeting a specific group of people for being who they are, because of some sort of agenda, grievance, or twisted logic makes one a terrorist; the anti-Semite in D.C. had every intention of killing Jews, and the man in PA specifically targeted Amish girls.
So, I couldn't help but wonder whether the term "terrorist" only applies to Muslims. I have to say that this largely seems to be the case in post-9/11 United States.
However, I recall that the D.C. sniper professed to being a Muslim, and even talked about jihad in his writings. Being a militant Muslim did not make him a terrorist. And for that matter, neither did brainwashing his teenage accomplice. Perhaps most astonishingly, even INCITING TERROR on a massive scale did not qualify John Allen Muhammad.
Where is the disconnect?
This question was suddenly thrust into the spotlight after the tragic news of the shooting at Fort Hood came out last week. Fox News even put up this poll asking whether the massacre was an "act of terror or a horrific crime".
There is so much wrong with this picture! Not only do we not have a clear picture of what even constitutes terrorism--which, by the way, we are apparently fighting a War against--but what benefit does this distinction even offer us?
I therefore have three questions:
- If (and this is a majorly huge, theoretical if) one concedes that it is possible to defeat terrorism through the use of War, how can said War be won if its target has no clear definiton? Would not the extent of such a War become as indefinite as its target?
- If the moniker of "terrorist" does not coincide with a specific act, type of act, or motivation, is not the label then a purely political one?
- Are not all "acts of terror" and "horrific crimes" one in the same?
The word 'terrorism' is a modern phenomena. Terrorism, is indeed, a label by which Media, Feds, & Gov. are able differentiate acts which they may gain 'control' and acts of which they would not gain control.
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify this:
9/11 ("terrorism")-Iraq War, Afghanistan, Patriot Act, Dept. of Homeland Security, wire tapping, unaccountable spending, Middle Eastern occupancy, oil expansion, etc etc.
In order to be granted the label of "terrorism" in todays climate, the act itself cannot be committed by a crazy person acting out irrationally, regardless of the terror or murder that is induced. Because, there is no political or financial gain for America by calling these acts of terror.
To be dubbed an act of "TERROR!!!" in the modern West, the accused is required to be an blatant Muslim, allowing the act to be related to the Jihad attack 9/11: And as we all know, "We can't let them get away with that again!" In turn, allowing the government to keep Americans under a healthy dose of fear and control because, "This War on Terror is still alive and well."
Terrorism: The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
(Political purpose of whom?)
I think the definition offered in "The National Security Strategy" from 2002 (which seems to be echoed in the NSS from 2006) may be of some help here. Terrorism, according to the NSS, is "premeditated, politically- motivated violence against innocents." Therefore, according to this definition, something like the Virginia Tech Shootings or the Amish shootings wouldn't be terrorism because they aren't "politically motivated" (assuming that we can agree on what constitutes a political motivation, since this isn't defined in the document), while something like the Oklahoma City Bombing would.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely happy with this definition (because is not war "premeditated, politically motivated violence" if not intentionally, at least willingly "perpetrated against innocents" (as Wendell Berry has pointed out)?
Each of your questions would require multiple book-length works even to scratch the surface.
1. As for the first question, no. Well, actually, yes, if I concede that it is possible to defeat terrorism (however unclear and indefinite its definition) through the use of war. But I can't concede because the definition is unclear and the target is indefinite. So I won't concede, terrorism cannot be defeated through war.
2. If you accept the above definition, then terrorism does coincide with an act and a motivation (premeditated, politically motivated violence against innocents). But of course the label is political, as is who we ascribe the label to.
3. They aren't the same according to the above definition.
Just some thoughts.
in hindsight, i should have phrased #3 "SHOULD not all acts of terror and horrific crimes be one in the same." that's what i was getting at. this is along the lines of what you pointed out about sanctioned warfare falling neatly into the definition of terrorism.
ReplyDelete