the corner office : Terrorists

Terrorists

Just switched off the telly. In the news are two things: the assassination of the wheel-chair-bound, half-blind 'spiritual leader' of a terrorist group who apart from encouraging suicide bombings also builds up its groundswell support by funding schools, hospitals and other social projects. At the same time the spin machine for both sides hypes up and down the allegations that George W Bush was so focused on finding a way to implicate Iraq that he allegedly barely cared about the real perpetrators of 9/11.

I tried to look up the word 'terrorism' in the dictionary and it basically describes every use of force humankind has ever resorted to: violence to achieve a goal. Yet we have a War on Terror, nebulous as it sounds, and we must win. Us versus terrorists, and they must go.

I'm ambivalent, and here's why: our current government used to be a terrorist organisation. I wouldn't vote for the ANC but I do support their right to rule our country. That's what democracy is about.

There was a time, though, when they tried to kill people like me, for things I had little control over. Our much-loved ex-president Nelson Mandela was responsible for forming Umkhonto We Sizwe, the ANC's military arm. MK, as they were known, were the reason that almost every classroom in white South African schools had posters up, teaching us how to identify limpet mines and the like. Terrorist attacks happened. The ANC killed innocent civilians to achieve their goals. The Magoo Bar bombing is a particularly infamous terrorist attack from the 80s. The mastermind of that is now a Police Chief.

(Unsurprisingly, in the entire BBC article, the word 'terror' doesn't appear once. Yet the Magoo Bombing was pure terrorism, as pure as 9/11 or the Madrid bombing or the suicide attacks in any downtown Jerusalem restaurant).

Perception and semantics. One day a terrorist attack, another day a 'bombing'. One day terrorists, the next day, your government. It can be hard to reconcile these things. Perhaps it's impossible, and there's a lesson in that.

Firmly fixed in my world view is the old truism: one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Very firmly, I abhor violence. I hate the idea of killing. Yet when it comes to the concept of 'terrorism', our own history tells me it's not as cut and dried as we'd like it to be.

I often ask myself: what would have to happen to my life, my status quo, my freedoms, before I was willing to do what so-called terrorists do? Can I honestly say never? Could you?

It seems to me that a working definition of terrorists is simply 'those who commit acts of war without the benefit of a flag to give it legitimacy'. As westernised people, we were always very comfortable with the notion of 'collateral damage' (can you spell Hiroshima?) as a necessity to defend ourselves or enforce our notion of what's right and wrong on the world. Ironic then, how we react when others want to engage us on similar terms.

I dunno. I'm not standing up for terrorists and the awful things they do. I just don't think that established, sovereign states are necessarily very different to, or better than The Terrorists. I don't believe that the issues are as simple as our politicians (and our fears) would have us accept.

{2004.03.23 00:58}

Comments:

1. Stan Rogers (2004.03.23 - 04:14) #

As well-said as it could have been, Colin.

2. Ben Langhinrichs (2004.03.23 - 05:02) #

Well said, Colin. I wish life were as clear cut as the politicians make it out to be, but it never is.

3. Jerry Carter (2004.03.23 - 19:47) #

Difficult to reconcile, indeed.

The difference between the terrorists and what we are seeing now, the war on terrorism, goes beyond semantics, though.

On the one hand, you have a small group that has published many times it's desire to destroy the West at any cost and establish militant Islam as the law of the land in every corner of the world. This is no exaggeration, though it may be too brief a summary of their stated collective aims.

On the other hand, you have obstensibly democractic nations, nations which have openly allowed Islam, even fundraising by the PR arms of organizations like Hamas, as well as free policitcal speech against the west, in the spirit of freedom and democracy. For our trouble, we are increasingly persecuted.

9/11, Madrid, Embassies in Africa, suicide bombings in Israel, etc. are things that can be classified as one of two things. Either they are acts of punishment which the innocent victims, proxies for the nations in which they live, some how deserve, or these are acts of agression along the lines of Pearl Harbor - acts of war.

Only the most self depricating and guilt-ridden among us could possibly entertain the first notion. We are not responsible for the things our forefathers may have done, we have decided to create a world of global trade, peace, and order and try to move forward. I refuse to accept the guilt of 17th century slavers, the pilots of the Enola Gay and each and every Knight that rode into the Crusades. Wasn't there, couldn't have stopped it. Therefore, the attacks, regardless of the anger that may stir them up, are acts of war against innocent people.

Righteous anger and preemptive, defensive and crippling military actions are therefore our only option. The enemy has already, and repeatedly, stated their disdain for our very existence, their intent to rid the planet of us, and their zealous belief that they are right to do so in the sight of Allah. I don't see that we have an option but to persecute a war on terror wherever it can be found.

Attempts at peace have been proven fruitless in the laboratory of Israel. One can apparently not trust or negotiate any peace with terrorists, despite best intentions. If Israel is too muddied a test set for you, consider then Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and the many agreements, pacts and treaties of the last century that were turned to ash in these places.

While I too abhore killing, I realize that there is a point when the enemy, in their fevered hatred, ceases to be human through their actions. At that point, we have no choice but to resort to that which we loath. We must kill them or be killed by them. Being that we are fortunate enough to inhabit various democracies, we have a choice. Support this action, or oppose it. But by opposing it, we lend credibility to the enemy. Speaking of concerns for propriety, caution and limiting of collateral damage are certainly noble and needed dialogs. But let us not waver in the determination to preserve the civilization we have built. We can only make it better through combined cooperative effort. Our enemy, sadly, has no such desire for us.

Though it may sound harsh or like rhetoric, when Bush says, "You are either with us, or you are against us.", he is quite right.

4. jonvon (2004.03.23 - 21:02) #

everything you said resonates colin. of course i don't have any experience being the victim, at least directly, of a terrorist act. but i strongly agree with what you are saying.

5. Colin Mac (2004.03.23 - 23:04) #

The one vivid memory I have of my dad talking about WWII, (yes he was there and seldom talks about it), was when he met an old german soldier and they chatted like long lost mates.

I asked him later "Why? He was the enemy?" and he said, "No, he was just a soldier like me."

This made me realise that any army is simply the tool of powerfull men. Men driven by their own private desires and whom seldom know or hold dear the interests of the pawn, or the victim.

Innocents will get caught up in such petty squabbles for as long as they blindly follow their leader's call to arms and not ask "why?"

Until that happens, this human race will remain a mindless mob of squabbling children.

6. Stan Rogers (2004.03.24 - 20:42) #

Jerry, the actual patriots in your country during the 1776-1778 period were wearing red coats. The lawful government of what became the United States of America was the British Crown and Parliament. The fact that the "terrorists" won that time has made them "freedom fighters" and "patriots" (and a lack of better explosives is all that kept some of them from becoming murderers on a massive scale). If the FLQ (Front de Liberation du Québec) had grown in strength and Quebec had separated from Canada, no doubt they would have been regarded in much the same light -- despite the bombs and kidnappings (or because of them). As Colin said, it's all a matter of perspective (and the fact that winners get to write the history).

7. Ben Langhinrichs (2004.04.02 - 17:17) #

My daughter was in Germany with me recently, and she visited the site of the Dachau concentration camp. She described the weirdest thing as being the different ways the written signs and audio tape described the same events. Clearly, in her mind, the audio tape was made by Americans and the written signs by Germans, and their views of events were incredibly different.

I'm quite sure if the Japanese internment camps in the US had been preserved as monuments, you would have found much the same thing (even if the camps were not directly comparable in terms of horror), but we barely even acknowledge that they existed. Perspective is an amazing thing.