Most citizens of our planet
believe that terrorism is a new concept, developed by malcontents to satisfy
their collective frustration at not being able to impose their will on the
general population and the peaceful nations of the world.
If that is your view, read
on. Terrorism is a new word for
systematic murder, but new it is not.
What we now call terrorism started as a cluster of doctrines and
attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and
unnecessary. The start of terrorism,
originally called anarchism, may be first found in 19th century
France. It developed among the western
nations and spread throughout the world, principally in the early 20th
century.¹ Following World War II, anarchism reemerged as terrorism, fed by
numbers of minority groups who felt they
had not received their fair share of the spoils of war.
I consider myself a
restrained patriot who prefers negotiation to violence, and who detests
terrorism. In my opinion, there is no
place in this world for individuals such as Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and
their ilk. That is my opinion and I
don’t expect everyone to embrace my views, but there are people in this world
who abuse the privilege of dissent.
The Bergen Record carried a story
on October 11, 2001
on a seminar held at the Middle East Institute of Columbia University. The conduct of the participants and the
content of the session was sickening.
Instead of expressing outrage over the World Trade
Center mass murder of
innocent citizens from the United
States and eighty other nations by
nihilistic terrorists, far too many participants seemed content with just
explaining why it happened – in their opinion.
And why did it happen, you may ask?
The participants’ simplistic answer is that Americans have ignored
Muslims and are paying too much attention to Israel. We were also criticized for the
American-supported sanctions against Iraq. No one, not one participant, expressed any
views on the WTC murders and destruction.
They danced around the jetliner hijackings, the destruction of the WTC,
and the deaths of almost 6,000 innocent civilians. They concentrated their discussions on what America did
wrong that motivated the terrorists (though they did not refer to them as
terrorists) and what America
should do to correct its past errors.²
It was a clear case of blaming the victim.
Keep in mind that this
seminar was not organized by Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein; nor was it held
in a country that opposed America’s
love of freedom. It was an academic
operation organized and held at one of America’s most prestigious
universities. I couldn’t help thinking,
if this was typical of the views of our institutions of higher learning, we
were in deep trouble! What was
especially troubling was the thought that the graduate students of Columbia and other
universities are among the people that we are depending on to lead our nation
in the years to come.
Before the WTC disaster, a
documentary was broadcast on TV where some 6-7 year old Palestinian children
met with some Israeli children of the same age as part of a planned survey. They played and had fun together, and
appeared to get along very well while enjoying each other’s company. As part of the program, they agreed to meet
again in the future.
A few years later, the
participants were interviewed again, but this time they wouldn’t even consider
being in the same room with their former playmates. The tide of hate was intense. One Palestinian girl, who was sweet, dancing and
smiling during the first meeting, was now hateful and very angry. She expressed hatred of all Jews and voiced
an interest in dying for the Palestinian cause.
An Israeli boy felt that all Palestinians were pigs who should be killed
at first opportunity.³
It must be remembered that
these were pre-teenage children. What
happened during the intervening years? What caused this dramatic change in
attitude? We can only speculate, but it
would appear that they were taught to hate each other, sufficient to assume
that some would cause the murder of their former playmates.
These interviews were
conducted somewhere in the Levant, I don’t
recall the exact location. The view
could be taken that this was an existing Middle East
problem that would take years, if not decades, to resolve. We could take such a view, but another
program presented in the United
States during 2002 should erase any such
thoughts and, hopefully, raise a red flag.
In a September 2002 program,
60-Minutes presented a very disturbing program on education. They had a segment on an American school in
the United States
teaching Islam to the children of Islamic parents living in the U.S. There certainly is nothing wrong with
that: I suspect they were trying to show
both faces of the same coin to their viewers, but after watching the program, I
doubt that they expected to hear what these children told them.
They selected a small group
of boys and girls of high school age and interviewed them as two gender
groups. Prior to the interviews, they
recorded a discussion with the principal who (upon being prodded on the point)
stated emphatically that the Koran specifically forbids suicide. He did not make the statements conditional. I have since read the sections of the Koran
that he referenced and can find no other way to interpret what he stated.
The children, however, had
other thoughts on the matter – especially the girls. When asked if they agreed with the terrorists
that suicide bombing guaranteed a direct trip to Paradise,
they said “Yes.” When asked if, given
the opportunity, they would participate as suicide bombers assuming that such
participation would lead them to Paradise,
they said “Yes.” These answers were made with innocent and
smiling faces, with no apparent understanding of the death and destruction they
were advocating.
It was obvious that the
interviewer was surprised by the answers.
Later, in the program one of the girls’ teachers was interviewed and
made aware of the girls’ views on suicide.
She appeared shocked. I am convinced
it was a true reaction and not an act.
Once again, a reminder: This was an American school in the United States
teaching, in part, American children.
Despite the comments of the Principal and the shocked reaction of the
teacher, these children were more influenced by the propaganda received from
abroad than by what the school was attempting to teach them.
My reaction to what I have
presented above and to what follows is that the lasting peace we are striving
to achieve is destined to fail. I have
no hope for any lasting peace in the Middle East. In my opinion, we are in the midst of another
religious war fed by the existing adult population and supported by a growing
army of misinformed children. History
has recorded past religious wars as the most deadly and long lasting means of
killing people. God help us!
1. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite 2004 CD.
2. The Bergen
Record, October 11,
2001 issue.
3. Unrecorded documentary, probably presented in
early 2001 or in 2002.
LFC
July 2004
Supplement
During November 2004,
National Geographic prepared a spread on the World of Terrorism. The
article was far more explanatory than my attempt in the previous article and
serves to amplify the depth and seriousness of the terrorist movement. The author of this article is Walter Laqueur,
one of the world’s leading experts on terrorism and guerrilla warfare, recently
retired from the Kissinger Chair at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, D.C.
His latest book is Voices of
Terror (2004).
“As the new century began, an
epidemic of terrorism spread panic around the globe. In world capitals, leaders fortified their
security and curtailed public appearances.
Ordinary citizens felt unsafe walking the streets of major cities, while
the terrorists themselves were like phantoms – everywhere and nowhere at the
same time, seemingly able to strike at will.
Terrorism became the preoccupation of police and politicians, bankers
and business leaders. Headlines screamed
out news of the latest outrage:
‘WASHINGTON STUNNED BY THE TRAGEDY’ in one paper, ‘IN GREAT PERIL’ in
another. One horrific September
terrorist attack , in the United
States, sent the stock market reeling and
sparked anti-immigrant sentiment. Another
attack, in Madrid,
plunged Spanish politics into turmoil over issues of war and peace. Politicians in the U.S. took to describing the war on
terror as a struggle of good versus evil, while some religious leaders, quoting
scripture, proclaimed that the end of the world was on hand.
“The year was 1901.
“As frightening as modern
terrorism is, the bitter fear it generates would have been familiar to those
alive at the turn of the 20th century. A few decades before, Russian revolutionaries
had killed Tsar Alexander II with a bomb in St. Petersburg. In 1894 an Italian anarchist stabbed French
president Sadi Carnot In 1897 the
Spanish prime minister was assassinated just as Cuba’s drive for independence
was boiling over; within a year, Spain was at war with the United States. And in 1901 William McKinley, President of
the United States,
was assassinated by a 28-year-old anarchist, Leon Czolgosz. Thirteen years later, of course, a Serbian
terrorist shot and killed Archduke Ferdinand, heir to the throne of Austria, and
triggered World War I.
“Obviously terrorism –
defined here as the systematic use of murder, injury, and destruction, or the
threat of such acts, aimed at achieving political ends – has the power to alter
the course of history, as the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, last
spring’s train bombings in Madrid, and bloodcurdling headlines from Israel and
Iraq remind us today. And with the
additional threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, it does seem that
humanity has crossed into a perilous new era, in which a new breed of
terrorist, armed with fearsome new weapons, has acquired the means to challenge
even the most powerful nations on Earth.
“How did the world come to
this point? What in the world has
changed?
“Terrorism is as old as the
story of mankind. It appears in the
history of ancient Greece
and Rome – the
murder of Julius Caesar was an act of terror – and in practically every century
since then, and in every part of the world.
But much has changed in just the past century, starting with the choice
of targets. In the past the typical
victim of terrorism was an emperor or a king, a president, a general, or at
least a government official. Terrorists
would actually call off an attack in order to spare innocent lives, because
indiscriminate killing was considered politically unwise. Many of today’s terrorists feel no such
inhibitions.
“Motives have also
changed. A century ago terrorism was
mainly used by groups and individuals whose aims were revolutionary or anarchist
or, in the case of Ireland
and the Balkans, nationalist. A look at
the geography of terror around 1970 still showed the same basic trends –
left-wing terrorism in Europe and Latin America; nationalist or separatist
terrorism in Northern Ireland, Spain’s Basque region, and the Middle East; and
a few right-wing terrorist groups in Italy, Turkey and other countries.
“Today, however, extreme
Islamic groups such as al Qaeda have moved to the vanguard of global terrorism. According to the CIA, al Qaeda or affiliated
groups are operating in 68 countries worldwide
[ During the period July 1986 through September 1997 alone there were
101 reported acts of terrorism against 30 countries]. And while the 9/11 attacks in New York and
Washington represent their most spectacular success to date [the World Trade
Center bombings killed thousands of innocent civilians from 80 countries],
other attacks have occurred in Morocco, Tunisia, Spain, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq, and Russia –
all since 9/11. According to Osama bin
Laden and other leaders, al Qaeda is motivated by the Islamic tradition of
jihad, or holy war, to defend the faith against nonbelievers. They see themselves as engaged in a global
struggle against a corrupt and oppressive enemy, the West.
“Compare this with the
motives of the Russian anarchists of 1881, or the Oklahoma City bombers, or Peru’s Shining
Path, or the Irish Republican Army, or the Unabomber. Obviously, terrorists have very little in
common ideologically. What they share is
willingness to use the same brutal tactics to achieve their goals.
“They also are not, despite a
popular misconception, driven to terrorism by personal poverty. The leaders and many of the foot soldiers in
the Islamic movements come from solidly middle-class backgrounds, and some,
like bin Laden, from very wealthy families.
That’s not to say that social factors like poverty and despair don’t
radicalize populations. But hunger by
itself does not necessarily lead to political violence; many of the world’s
poorest nations report little or no terrorism.
“Nor is it true that
terrorism occurs in the most oppressive regimes. There was little terrorism in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia or Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Terrorism needs a certain amount of freedom
to mobilize its supporters and to get organized; it suffocates in a
dictatorship, which itself practices a form of terrorism, but wearing uniforms
and insignia.
“Hundreds of national and
religious minorities in the world are persecuted; there are few nations, in
fact, in which minorities do not feel oppressed. But only a handful resort to terrorism, and
here cultural and social traditions seem to play a role. Certain human societies seem to tolerate
violence more readily than others. Why
did the radical Basques in Spain
choose terrorism while the Catalans followed a more peaceful path? Why did the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka
engage in one of the longest and bloodiest terrorist campaigns in history,
while the Muslims of Sri Lanka, also repressed, did not?
“Terrorism also seems to
require charismatic leaders capable of inspiring recruits to face danger or
death, and also to win the sympathy of the surrounding population. In post=World War II Palestine, the Zionist terrorist
groups Irgun and Stern Gang enjoyed support from parts of the Jewish community
in Palestine and the U.S. and helped in driving out the British; an Irgun
commander, Menachem Begin, was later elected prime minister of Israel. Conversely, leaders of the Japanese group Aum
Shinrikyo, which attacked the Tokyo
subway with poison gas in 1995, had little support beyond their ranks – and
today they languish in jail.
“What can be done to counter,
or at least to defuse, the danger of terrorism in the future? Some movements are open to political
solutions – especially those demanding greater political autonomy, such as the
Kurds in Turkey
and the Chechens in Russia. But the more radical groups like al Qaeda are
not interested in compromises; they demand total victory.
“In the long term, such
white-hot fanaticism may burn out and even disappear, making way for new kinds
of zealotry. But in the meantime, we are
faced with one of the most dangerous passages in human history. For the first time ever, terrorists – these
small and unpredictable groups of people, stateless, tethered to no morality
other than their own – have a potential for harm that defies the imagination,
should weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands. Civilization will prevail – it always has –
but there can be no final victory in the ‘war on terror,’ which, in one form or
another, will continue as long as there are conflicts on Earth.”
Excerpts from an article, World of Terror, prepared by Walter
Laqueur for National Geographic, November 2004 issue.
November 2004
LFC
No comments:
Post a Comment