What Exactly Is Terrorism?

I ran across an interesting post today on libertynow.com that asks the question, “Why do they (the terrorists,) hate us? The point they make is that terrorists do not target the West because they “hate our freedoms.” Islamic terrorism is a backlash against U.S. foreign policy and UN sanctions. This is true enough but it got me thinking about what terrorism really is. A lot of debate goes into how and where the War On Terror should be fought, but little effort has been made to really analyze the concept of terrorism from the ground up.

Terrorism is an interesting word. When individuals or small, unofficial groups target civilians with violence we call it terrorism and condemn it as inhumane and despicable. When a "smart bomb" with USA printed on the side falls on an Arab's house, we call it collateral damage. Both constitute attacks on civilians so why do we react with such outrage to the former, but look the other way when we see the latter happening?

Why does the U.S. claim to be justified in killing thousands of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers and civilians, along with thousands of its own marines, while terrorists are condemned and vilified for bombing an embassy or café and blowing themselves up in the process? The answer is legitimacy. War, terrorism, collateral damage, insurgency, guerilla attacks, etc. are all forms of destructive violence and all of them kill civilians. They are simply different names for the same thing.

But why so many words to describe the same act? Well, as a political leader, if you can convince people to artificially divide in their minds an idea that most would consider evil, into two or three distinct categories, and then associate one of them with justice and a good cause, you can justify yourself in committing what was formerly an atrocity in the minds of your subjects. Hence in the West we are taught to fear and loathe terrorists but to “support the troops,” in their war against terrorism. Meanwhile radicals in the Middle East see America as the Great Satan, and are taught that Americans are imperialist warmongers who kill and oppress Muslims. Both sides feel justified in committing their particular brand of violence while condemning that committed by their enemies.

This semantic game has been played by politicians, kings and dictators since time began and it is used heavily now by both sides in the War On Terror. Both sides are led by warmongers and power seekers who spout moral and religious rhetoric while crossing their fingers behind their backs. The main difference is that one side already has the mantle of State legitimacy and the other is seeking it.

Gaining power from those who have it usually requires violence and a protracted resistance. Most people by nature do not like to fight unless they feel they must, so it becomes vital to those seeking power to invent some crisis or injustice that will spark violent opposition and indignation among the general population. Only this way can they rally enough support to overthrow one regime and replace it with their own. This was the game played by communist guerilla leaders and it is precisely what is going on in Iraq right now. The U.S. played right into the hands of Iraq’s aspiring rulers by overthrowing Hussein, destroying what was left of their economy and then proceeding to occupy the country. The resulting insurgency is an attempt to oust the occupying force and gain control of what’s left of the State apparatus.

But not all terrorist leaders are seeking to set up their own State or overthrow an existing regime. Power comes in many forms and one does not have to be an official ruler to bask in its glow. Figures such as Osama Bin Laden aren’t necessarily trying to set up their own State, but instead are attempting to recruit an international following. This may be an even more intoxicating and overarching form of power since it has no boundaries or borders and is not limited by national prejudices. It consists of control over the minds and bodies of others. It includes the same type of subservience and loyalty enjoyed by Presidents and kings. Some terrorist leaders may simply desire to reduce the power and hegemony of the West in relation to themselves and to Islamic states in general. In any case, those at the top of the terrorist pyramid are there to further their own interests and to accumulate power, money and influence in one form or another.

Conversely, the empire business is not self-sustaining. It requires constant fuel to be thrown on the imperial fires in order for rulers to stay in power and to justify the continued expansion of the State. People generally do not like being ruled, paying half their income in taxes or being forced to fight and pay for constant military adventures in foreign countries. There must be an unceasing stream of new reasons to convince them to do so. If these reasons do not occur naturally and in enough abundance then they must be invented. Nothing is more enticing to a demagogue than the prospect of a crisis or emergency for which he purports to have the solution.

In the War On Terror, neither side's leaders desire an end to the conflict. The whole purpose of the fighting is to seize and expand power. If war is the health of the state, then terrorism, guerilla warfare, and "insurgency" are the health of the would-be state. Both need constant reasons to fight and enemies to fight with. Violence begets violence as each side keeps “retaliating” against some previous attack or injustice. It’s a childish but deadly game of “you started it.” So the cycle continues with the leaders on both sides reaping the rewards while their populations bear the cost.

The war on terror needs to be seen for the hoax it is. On both sides it is an attempt by power seekers to mobilize the masses for their own benefit. The State (whichever one it might be) creates threats and enemies through its "foreign policy" which it then uses to scare the people and convince them that they need government protection. It's the cold war revisited. There must always be a formidable enemy from which to protect the public. The specter of world communism is gone so it must be replaced with something else. It's one of the oldest tricks in the Dictator's Handbook. It’s time to stop falling for it.

As for terrorists, the best and only way to make them stop is to quit giving their handlers ammo to recruit them with. Lift the sanctions, stop the warmongering, drop the self-righteous rhetoric and quit trying to expand the empire. Allow young Muslims a chance to make a living, have children and enjoy a somewhat peaceful life rather than placing embargoes on their countries and then bombing their neighborhoods. If their present rulers oppress them, allow them to resist and cope in their own way rather than trying to foist democracy and freedom on them by force. Islam is not the enemy. Muslims are people just like everyone else and as such, if given a choice between war and peace they can be expected to choose the latter. In short, we need to mind our own business and let the rest of the world mind theirs.

For some more eloquently stated but similar viewpoints see:
My Enemy’s Friend Is My Enemy
Meeting A Suicide Bomber
Suicide Terrorism