Friday, November 19, 2004
The question of terror
Here's that definition of terrorism that appeared in a short article in the November issue of National Geo. It's by Walter Lacqueur, author of Voices of Terror (2004): " ...the systematic use of murder, injury, and destruction, or the threat of such acts, aimed at achieving political ends." Seems like an obvious definition, but he goes on to point out that the nature of terrorism has changed. A group like Al Quaeda is not trying to create a state for itself. Its goal is to defend Islam against the power of the "West". This would seem to be terrorism as a response to powerlessness. You could say that Al Quaeda grew up as a response to the presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is. This is a political and a religious end, inasmuch as that country's autonomy is important for Islam.
One of the most important points Laqueur makes, though, is that terrorism has changed its targets. Where government officials and monarchs were once the targets, now terrorists target civilians, and do far more damage, even though the incidence of terrorist acts has declined. They have achieved true terror, instability and fear among the innocent masses.
But I think terrorism can come from a place of power as well. Isn't invading a foreign country and killing and injuring innocent civilians for the purpose of acquiring resources and "political capital" just the terrorism of the despot? I guess the difference is in the definition of "political ends".
The killing of anyone is repugnant to me, but somehow Margaret Hassan's murder has felt like a punch in the stomach. The Beslan massacre before that as well. It's all getting so dark. If schoolchildren and aid workers are your targets, what the hell is your political rationale?
Here's that definition of terrorism that appeared in a short article in the November issue of National Geo. It's by Walter Lacqueur, author of Voices of Terror (2004): " ...the systematic use of murder, injury, and destruction, or the threat of such acts, aimed at achieving political ends." Seems like an obvious definition, but he goes on to point out that the nature of terrorism has changed. A group like Al Quaeda is not trying to create a state for itself. Its goal is to defend Islam against the power of the "West". This would seem to be terrorism as a response to powerlessness. You could say that Al Quaeda grew up as a response to the presence of American military forces in Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is. This is a political and a religious end, inasmuch as that country's autonomy is important for Islam.
One of the most important points Laqueur makes, though, is that terrorism has changed its targets. Where government officials and monarchs were once the targets, now terrorists target civilians, and do far more damage, even though the incidence of terrorist acts has declined. They have achieved true terror, instability and fear among the innocent masses.
But I think terrorism can come from a place of power as well. Isn't invading a foreign country and killing and injuring innocent civilians for the purpose of acquiring resources and "political capital" just the terrorism of the despot? I guess the difference is in the definition of "political ends".
The killing of anyone is repugnant to me, but somehow Margaret Hassan's murder has felt like a punch in the stomach. The Beslan massacre before that as well. It's all getting so dark. If schoolchildren and aid workers are your targets, what the hell is your political rationale?
# posted by becca : 10:00 AM
