Terrorism versus Definitions

Does definitions of terrorism really affect specific acts of terrorism and the general publics opinion. Can terrorism be defined by anyone without bias....I doubt it and I believe that in the long run it wont make a difference anyway. Terrorism can in my opinion only be stopped by pro-active measures designed to affect, detect and stop the actual terror acts.

Let us start by considering for a brief moment what terrorism is and what it is not, to many people that may sound like a simple matter; but when it comes to definitions, they are as different and many as the persons you ask. In the book Political Terrorism, authors Schmidt and Youngman cited 109 different definitions of terrorism. After having studied and taught on aspects of terrorism and counter terrorism since 1996, I have yet to come up with a definition that can stand up to my personal scrutiny.

The problem is that, it is actually a rather complicated matter, it usually comes down to your personal point of view and on which side of the conflict you are. Margaret Thatcher has been quoted as saying "one mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter" and that quote is unfortunately very true. From the FBI webpage one can find that; terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as:

"...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives."

That sounds simple and easy to agree upon, until people of different cultures, religions and political views start asking questions and making interpretations. With this definition we can easily declare that when the ALF explode a bomb at an animal testing facility, it is terrorism. We can also easily state that when anti-abortion activists explode a bomb at an abortion clinic it is terrorism. In both cases we can argue that the FBI definition leaves no legal room for moral or religious arguments to support such actions. But the definition immediately blows up in our face when other views of this definition are called up, basically from the above definition anyone, who fought against Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime was a terrorist by FBI standards, as they were trying to coerce a government.

So we must agree that there is room for interpretation of the US FBI definition. So let’s quote one of those interpretations:

"The difference between the revolutionary and the terrorist lies in the reason for which each fights. For whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists cannot possibly be called terrorists." Yasser Arafat
Quoted from: Inside Terrorism, Bruce Hoffman - 1998 - Published by Weidenfeld & Nicolson, ISBN 0575065095

This is stated by the man who for decades were not only considered a terrorist but also organized and carried out terrorist acts, at least they are considered terrorist acts by most of the western world. However his statement does ring true and close to hearth to many of us, if we ignore who made it and give the statement a moment of consideration. What he is saying is essentially that the American rebels who fought the British Empire and won the independence of a new nation, was freedom fighters and not terrorists, even if they were labeled terrorists by the British. He is also defending the French Resistance fighters who fought against the Nazi occupation and carried out acts of sabotage and assassinations of Nazi’s and their French Vichy collaborators, these Resistance fighters were labeled terrorists by the Nazis and the Vichy government.

If we accept Yasser Arafat’s statement and the definitions that both the American Rebels and the French Resistance fighters were not terrorists but in reality a sort of "heroes", we also have to conclude that Palestinian attacks in Israel are not terrorism, that the IRA attacks in the UK are not terrorism, that the ETA attacks in Spain are not terrorism, that the Iraqi attacks on coalition forces are not terrorism, that the LTTE’s attacks in Sri Lanka are not terrorism, and an endless list of other groups and unspeakable acts of barbarism by so many extremist groups worldwide.

But if we decide then to reject the statement of Arafat and go back to the US definition as upheld by the FBI; we still have a problem because the US definition starts by "the unlawful use of force or violence…." Then the problem immediately arises as to the definition of the words "unlawful" and "force", what does that mean exactly?

How do we define those terms? Because when the US declared the "War on Terror" following the apalling 9-11 attacks, which caused 2,752 civilian casualties. Most of us would agree that using military force in attacking the Al Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan were a justified act of military force. However the following US aerial bombardment, of not just Al Qaeda but also the Taliban government’s strongholds caused 3,767 civilians casualties, between October 7th and December 10th 2001. That is 1015 more deaths, than the attack that was retaliated.

The justification for declaring war on the Taliban government of Afghanistan, was that the Al Qaeda and the Taliban government were so closely allied, that they were jointly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. However the counter-terrorism actions caused 1000 more innocent civilian life’s, than the terror attacks it was meant to retaliate for. Is that acceptable to us? Is that justice? Do the deaths of 3,767 innocent Afghan civilians, relieve the loss of 2,752 US and foreign nationals killed in the 9-11 attacks?

If you were an innocent Afghani citizen and your house have been bombed by the "War on Terror" allies; your family members killed in the bombings, will your nights be filled with nightmares of terror images of explosions and deaths? Will you consider the retaliations as being just or as acts or terror? Will you seek to retaliate for the injustice done to you and your dear ones?

Immediately many will argue, that these unfortunate civilian losses are not intended and that they are collateral damage in a legally declared war. And that, civilian losses are an unfortunate part of every war and are often part of a necessary but tragic tactic of war; such as the blanket bombings of Dresden in Germany during the WW-2. When the city was destroyed as a psychological part of the allied forces war against the Third Reich; the city of Dresden was neither an important military target, nor an important infrastructural part of the Third Reich; it was bombed to break the fighting will of the German nation. Similarly the horrific nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a similar psychological warfare, that proved efficient in breaking the fighting will of the Japanese nation. Although these events were horrific they were nevertheless carried out as military strategies, in legally declared wars and infrastructure is part of the enemy’s strength and thus a military target.

The problem with this argument and the justification of civilian losses from a legally declared war, as being tragic but unavoidable collateral damage, is that the Islamic terrorists can use this justification as well. In 1998 Osama Bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda declared war on America (US) from one of the terrorist groups training camps in Afghanistan. If we agree to the US rationale that the Taliban government were so closely allied with the Al Qaeda group, that they were in fact jointly responsible for the 9-11 attacks. Then we must also accept that when Osama Bin Laden declared war on America, he did so of behalf of the Afghani-Taliban government and thus the war on America was a legally declared war. Therefore the attacks on 9-11 were legitimate attacks on the enemy’s infrastructure as the WTC were a part of America’s strength and the Pentagon was definitely a military target. The civilian losses were then tragic but unavoidable collateral damage in the cause of a just war. This of course if the argument that is upheld by the Islamic terror leaders, who are responsible for the 9-11, attacks and countless other terror attacks.

The US led coalition war on the former "Saddam Hussein regime" in Iraq, the invasion and the aerial bombings, was initially due to the facts that the Iraqi regime produced and stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, from which the world was at risk and due to the connection between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. Both facts have since then been proven to be at best wrong and at worst fabrications of facts. Absolutely no weapons of mass destruction has been found and terrorist-expert Rohan Gunaratna has stated;

"In addition to listening to 240 tapes taken from al-Qaeda's central registry, I debriefed several al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees. I could find no evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. The documentation and interviews indicated that al-Qaeda regarded Saddam, a secular leader, as an infidel".

Rohan Gunaratna’s findings on Al Qaeda has been used and quoted by the US government, whenever the findings were in accord with the views of the US Department of State, thus we must also agree to his findings in relation to Iraq and Al Qaeda. Furthermore the UN has declared that the US led invasion of Iraq, was an illegal act and against UN approval. Based on the US FBI definition of terrorism, that would make the invasion and the following civilian sufferings "unlawful", thus making the US led war on Iraq an act of terrorism and even worse than that, it would make it "state sponsored terrorism".

Undoubtedly, the US Department of State and the FBI would not agree to this view of the war in Iraq. But if we judge the use of force and violence and the effect on both the former Iraqi regime and the Iraqi civilian population and that the war has been declared unlawful by the UN, then we must accept that the US war in Iraq is indeed "terrorism".

Unless of course we decide that the US definition of terrorism is not to be taken fundamentally, but are open to further political clarification, and that the terms "force" and "unlawful" are open to debate, depending on what one can consider a just war etc. That, however brings us back to Arafat’s definition of what is not terrorism and thus the US and the coalition forces find themselves justified by Arafat’s words; words from a former terrorist whom the US would normally not want to side with. Thus we are left with "Ironlady" Margaret Thatcher’s famous quote:

"One mans terrorist, is another mans freedom fighter"

Thus from the above definitions and findings; I believe it is fair to state that so far "we" have not been able to agree upon a definitive "definition" of terrorism, there are simply to many factors and words that remains open to case-by-case interpretation!

Thus I have personally come to the conclusion that my definition of terrorism; "is any act of force or violence that is either meant to cause terror or does by its affects cause terror among a civilian population". Thus any act of force that causes civilian casualties or causes terror among civilians are an act of terror; whether the act were carried out by a "true" terror group, a repressive regime or an democratically elected government.

But, does my personal opinion really matter? Will my opinion change the tactics of future and present warfare or the methods and targets of terror groups? I sincerely doubt it!

As it is so difficult to even reach the definition of who a terrorist is and what an act of terrorism is; then perhaps we should leave that part to the politicians, whom hopefully one day will come up with a definition that at least the majority of the world’s population can agree upon.

Perhaps then we should rather focus on the cause that drives a person to become a terrorist and the ideology that justifies his acts of terrorism. Clearly one might expect that we can find such causes in lack of freedom, oppressive regimes and tyrants, among the poor and uneducated; surely it is the lack of global justice that causes terrorism. And if so solving these problems should be easier and give us clearly defined goals to work towards. Something we can actually achieve in the real world and not just in some utopian blissful world. If we ensure that the UN has a strong mandate, that democratic elections are increased worldwide and that we work towards a more equal share of wealth among nations; terrorism should eventually decline and disappear.

It sounds great and relatively simple at least in theory; however the truth is very different, the real truth is that although many terrorists comes from poor and uneducated societies and have suffered many injustices; the fact remains that terrorist leaders and those who define the terrorist’s ideology are usually all from the educated middleclass. People who have been brought up in relative safety, who have attended colleges and universities, who have had an economic situation that were far better than the majority of the worlds population lives in.

"Contrary to popular beliefs, this ideology is not borne out of poverty. This is a common misconception. Empirical evidence finds little correlation between poverty and militant Islam as conventional wisdom would suggest. In surveys conducted among various members of this sect, it is found that they come from the middle classes and are educated, competent and motivated. Many of them come from families in the civil service. Rather than the downtrodden, they represent the leaders of their generation. In fact Islamists that make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives tend to be financially at ease, educated and privileged."
Quoted from: Ten-Sigma, Jim Puplava – Storm Watch Update March 13, 2003. Financial Sense Online

This then makes it clear that the current war on terror groups like Al Qaeda; cannot be won by solving the unjust distribution of world wealth, or through education and better standards of living or even through freedom from regimes or tyrants. Princeton historian Sean Wilentz, in his biography of the September 11 killers, described that their terrorism acts were driven by money, education, and privilege. But it is not just among the Islamic terrorists we see such trends, it is an equal trend among leftist and single issue terror groups as well as many right wing militant groups. Examples can easily be found among the western terror groups such as the former German terror group Rote Armé Fraction, the Italian terror group the Red Brigade, the UK/US Animal Liberation Front and the Japanese Aum Shinri-Kyu. All members of the above terror groups have grown up in democratic countries, attended public education and many have gone to colleges or universities and none of them were poor.

Thus, until "we" learn to negotiate globally and earnestly try to understand our adversaries and respect their views, we will continue to experience terror acts. However those specific terror acts are not as unexpected as many politicians and intelligence services would have us believe. Their main reason for always stating, that it is virtually impossible to protect the millions of possible terrorist targets worldwide, is the fact that they have failed to understand terrorism and to allocate resources to actively combat terrorism in the "trenches". The former leader of the German, Bader-Meinhof group once said;

"If we have a free path we go forward. If we meet an obstacle we go around it. If the object cannot be overcome, we retreat. When the enemy is unprepared, we surprise him. If he is alert we leave him alone."

Thus in my book "Terrorist Modus Operandi" I describe in detail specific terror acts and the actual planning process or "Modus Operandi" of terrorist groups; because I know it is possible to affect, detect ad stop terrorist acts. Terrorist acts can be more effectively stopped by utilizing pro-active defensive tactics and strategies, than by political definitions, aerial bombardments and open acts of war. But, to effectively affect, detect and stop terrorist acts, we need to thoroughly understand the terrorist’s "Modus Operandi".

A sound introduction to the terrorist planning process can be found in my first book: SD Specialist - The Surveillance Detection Manual, see www.SurveillanceDetection.biz for details.

Athugasemdir

[Ólafur fannberg, 2.2.2007 kl. 17:47]

long reading ,,,have a nice weekend..