« house* for rent | Main | terrorist part 2 »
terrorist
When I was only a little bit younger than I am now, I often used to puzzle over the idea of people being terrorists. I had some strange notion that being a terrorist was much the same as being a liberal democrat or a labour supporter. I just could never work out what the purpose of creating terror was. I remember the Bader-Meinhof lot in the seventies filled me with confusion and yes, I suppose, fear. Partly I think because I couldn't understand what it was all about. Terror and creating terror as a way of life? Did they think that I could be persuaded to adopt a terrorist lifestyle? It is true that for a while as a kid I did wear a blue woolen balaclava that my mum knitted me, but this was more about keeping my wee head warm than hiding my identity. It took me ages to realise that there was a little bit of the puzzle missing from all the descriptions of the terrible things that terrorists did, and that was why did they do it? I am older now, and I like to think a little bit wiser in the ways of the world, but I still can't quite understand how anyone could think that killing and injuring ordinary people in London will help to persuade me that their view of the world is okay. I suppose the only consolation they have is the fact that the establishment has conceded to the demands of terrorists time and time again throughout history. The world we live in today would be a very different place without the terrorism of Oliver Cromwell or George Washington, or any number of other men that we credit with the creation of the modern world. The point I am trying to make here is that maybe, just maybe, the so-called terrorists that we face are doing what they do because they're fighting for something of value, something that we have taken from them or are denying them in some way. I do have to admit, though, I am not entirely clear what that could be or how killing my neighbour is going to help them achieve what they want.
mr mcmuffin on 8 Jul 2005 @ 01:29 AM ✲ Permalink
Comments
I am so glad you are both all right. I don't think terrorists care if they influence us - the terror itself is the thing that they wield. It is both the end and the means. There is no reason, logic, or rationale to brutality. Our hearts are with you on this sad and sorrowful day.
Posted by: Loretta | 8 Jul 2005 02:10:22
A couple of years back I read a book about Italian football hooligans: "A Season in Verona" was the title, or something similar. One sentence that described their mind-set has stuck with me ever since: "Identity is more important than morality". It fits for hooligans. It fits for terrorists. It also fits many things inbetween, like western politicians playing the populist card to get reelected. They all seem to end up with more or less blood on their hands, but there are differences in how much of that blood comes from innocent lives. And claiming it to be in the name of religion is about the most loathsome thing imaginable.
Posted by: David.2 | 8 Jul 2005 10:50:34
I'm don't see how Geo. Washington qualifies as a terrorist. Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty, probably so.
GW never attacked civilians and only worked as a commander of a military force working for a government. Whether or not that gov't or military force was recognized by anyone else is immaterial.
SA and the SoL had a habit of abducting redcoats and tarring and feathering them as well as causing other such strife as the Boston Tea Party. Those types of things are terrorist-like.
The current crop of Arab Muslim terrorists neither act as a military force nor are they working (openly) for a government.
Posted by: Ken | 8 Jul 2005 15:01:08
I'm inclined to agree with Ken -- Geo. Washington wasn't a terrorist. The usual distinction in academic circles (in the US anyway) is that terrorists attempt to blend with civilian populations and also target civilian populations, whereas guerilla armies mimic an "official" state army, have structures and uniforms that identify them as a unified force, and tend to target official targets, whether persons or facilities...
You could debate about the niceties of the definition, for sure, but the upshot is that Geo. Washington wasn't a terrorist. By those lights, neither was Cromwell, but he would certainly have qualified as a war criminal by modern standards for the use of terror tactics against civilian populations. (Morrissey agree with me on this!)
I think one hallmark of these small ultra-violent groups is that they take to violence to get their fanatical worldview in place, not having quite noticed that the reason it's not prevalent is that people don't want it. But if you are a fanatic, that realization would cause too much cognitive dissonance to sink in.
So there.
Posted by: Colin | 8 Jul 2005 15:12:22
Funny enough, it was Samuel Adams' name that first popped into my head...Regardless of all that 'you're a terrorist if you don't pretend to be like your enemy stuff', the fact is that Washington led a long and bloody war against the British establishment. In much the same way, so-called Islamic extremists are fighting a war against the emperialism of western Christians. I imagine they think they are fighting for a world in which they can be free of the tyranny of democracy and freedom and Christianity imposed upon them by the west.
Having said that, I don't think I have ever talked to anyone who holds these kinds of views and I'm not sure how we could ever start to sort things out because the differences between us would seem to be just too great.
Posted by: mr mcmuffin | 8 Jul 2005 15:27:27
I'm no longer sure they want to influence us. I think they just want to rid the world of our existence so that they can run it the way they want to.
Posted by: Sarah | 8 Jul 2005 17:14:11
Without realizing it, you have stumbled onto the big difference between modern day terrorism and the historical examples you describe. (I suppose it's too late to offer apologies for the Revolution thing)
Whatever your view of Washington, Cromwell, etc, THEIR objectives were quite clear to all parties involved (see the Unanimous Declaration of thirteen united states of America) Not so with the terrorism we have seen in the last half of this century, which has been a laundry list of causes from various factions. Never a stated goal or anyting tangible, or an end game, just mindless jibberish and lashing out at threats to their culture(s), real or imagined. In many cases it's not much more than racial/religious intolerance and hatred.
In your own words,..."I imagine they think...." That's the difference - we are left to wonder why, because if "they" had a common cause "they" could articulate it, and "we" could all then start fighting about how to help them achieve it. Instead, we continue to pick up each other's body parts waiting for the next cryptic message from a group led by a monster in a cave who represents no country. The modern day terrorist "cause" is a race without a finish line. Terrorism is an end in itself.
Ranting shoud stop here, but;
Some of the the men who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks told waitresses in the strip bars they frequented: " America will pay for its sins with blood" No doubt they had a list, but they didn't share it with us before hand so we could discuss it.
Is it oil? Our religious differences? Our cultural differences? Our capitalistic systems? Democracy? I've heard all of these batted back and forth among western pundits who claim to know, but have never seen the terrorists draft one coherent statement to settle the argument for us.
Anyway,maybe you can take some comfort in knowing the colonies stand with you, always, in spite of our differences.
Posted by: southpaw | 8 Jul 2005 18:27:47
I think these people need us to give their lives meaning. There has to be an 'oppressor' to oppose and imperialism (Mr McMuffin, that's an 'i') to fight.
You can just imagine these fucking saddoes on the couch, can't you?...'My father never loved me..' and their pity for themselves and their complete lack of empathy for any other person in the world.
Having said that, I do think there is a place for 'terrorism' (freedom fighting in my case), and violence against structures is sometimes necessary to fight against a real oppressive state, but hurting the uninvolved can never be acceptable.
Posted by: mrs mcmuffin | 8 Jul 2005 18:29:15
God, I write a load of bollocks! Please ignore the above. Well, apart from the fucking saddoe bit.
Posted by: mrs mcmuffin | 8 Jul 2005 21:59:14
Redcoats commanded by Capt. Thomas Preston (having been threatened and provoked, it turns out) opened fire on the mob in front of the Customs House on King Street in Boston, on March 5, 1770, killing 3 Bostonians and wounding 8. Capt. Preston and 8 of his men were arrested, charged and tried for the killings. John Adams, future signer of the Declaration of Independence, and later Vice President and finally President of the United States of America, represented the defendants. Result: all 9 were brutally beheaded --- oops, wrong "terrorists" -- er, Capt. Preston and 6 of the soldiers were acquitted and set free. 2 of the soldiers were convicted of manslaughter, branded as convicts (then a customary punishment for that offense), then freed.
GWashington, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty might have been revolutionaries or freedom fighters, but they were not terrorists. Words have meanings that do not change merely because those words are misused; the misuse of words is not harmless. Certain words are reserved for persons or acts vile enough to justify them, and we lose something of our ability to condemn those acts when we call someone a terrorist who is clearly not, or when we call someone an insurgent who is clearly a murderer from across the border.
Posted by: Egg McMuffin | 8 Jul 2005 22:25:41
The terrorist thing that really stuck in my head when I was a kid was when a bunch of (I think) South Moluccans hijacked a train in Holland. I don't remember now how that all turned out, but as a child it really haunted me.
Posted by: Steve | 8 Jul 2005 22:59:09
Yes Mrs Mc. you do write a load of bollocks. So do those that defend terrorists and their so-called agendas, so do those that defend imperialist governments like the United States government. Anyone who harms any other human being in the name of some nebulous cause is sick, anyone who defends them or tries to explain it away is just as sick. I watched it with the IRA, I've watched it with ETA And BAader-Meinhoff and umpteen other such "freedom" fighters and they are all sick. I watched as the troops sailed away to the Malvinas on tenuous reasons and I watched as they were sent out to the Gulf both times. This is senseless, on all sides of the line.
Posted by: Alistair | 9 Jul 2005 02:14:00
Steve, it was a group of South Moluccans in Holland -- there were actually two train hijacking incidents in 1975 and 1977. I vaguely remember the second one.
I specifically remember though having the Dutch police place an armed cordon around my primary school (the British School, outside the Hague) for a couple of days after the British Ambassador was assassinated in 1979.
The general consensus was that is was the IRA but it was never fully clear. In any case, the Dutch Police wanted to make sure that there was no attempt to go after his kids.
As for Washington leading a long war against the British establishment... until the start of the Revolutionary War / War of American Independence (delete per preference) Washington was the British establishment, Virginia Chapter. I can't quite see how being a general leading a uniformed army, representing a more-or-less elected government, is equivalent to the Bader Meinhof. Which is what the initial post implied.
Posted by: Colin | 9 Jul 2005 04:05:38
A good post ans so much more calm and lucid than my own rage and positng on the subject. Well done.
Posted by: Keith | 9 Jul 2005 07:57:23
This must be the worst blogI have ever seen. Make sure your kid gets a better education than you seem to have, with your pathetic attempts at moral equivalence. The terrorists are cunts and I would be happy to see them all dead before they ahve the chance of taking others with them.
Posted by: Craig UK | 15 Jul 2005 21:41:04
