Paladin
KC Hill
Craig Hill
jon
Oracle of DelphiTerrorism is so hot right now.
September 26th 2006 03:55
Terror. It’s a frightening word. Sheer terror. Strike terror into your heart. Terrorise. Terrorism. What does it mean? It used to be just plain scary but now it means so much more. I don’t think anyone can deny that terrorism has taken on new dimensions since that day in September (and I don’t mean Grand final day) and although terrorism as a military/political tactic has been around for aeons (the gunpowder plot, the Boer War, the Irish Struggle to name a few instances) the word has new currency in the brave new millenium. The Oxford defines a terrorist thus: “One who favours or uses terror-inspiring methods of governing or of coercing government or communtiy, hence terrorist”. This is obviously not the way the term is applied today, as this definition could easily mean any government who has waged war, used the death penalty or spoken about a possible threat (eg: communism, Hitler, AIDS). In the present usage, the term carries a damning moral weight and is used subjectively as a term of unquestionable despicability. It also implies an inverse state of pure innocence on the victims of terror. The generally accepted meaning seems to be “One who uses violence against civilians to gain maximum publicity for a cause” and is almost universally deplored. The “Good Guys” don’t use terror tactics; they use “Just War”. They don’t use suicide bombers; they use cluster bombs. They don’t call it terror; they call it “Shock and Awe”.
“Terror”as a word has become blackened since September 11th in a way that is far less palatable than it was in “Black September” (Munich, 1972) and nations the world over rushed to “renounce terrorism” and ban “terrorist groups”. The word has become a byword for evil, unthinkable, and unjustifiable such that a “War on terror” (which traces it’s justification all the way back to 911) is not only not a contradiction but deemed inevitable and desirable. Terror is a cancer, a parasite, an evil virus that spreads and infects wherever good people lie dormant. It even breaks down into “teror cells”.
In this new paradigm the application of “Terrorist/ism” is an attempt to take the moral high ground and thereby gain sympathy and unconditional support for retaliation by any means necessary. The most striking example of this was the recent “war” between Israel and Hezbollah. I qualify the term “war” because the participants themselves were reluctant to use the term in preference to demonising the other as “terrorists”. Israel was particularly keen for this to be seen as a third prong in the greater “War on Terror”. In dubbing their opponents as terrorists they seemed to believe they would have carte blanche to dispense with any of the traditional rules of engagement, or moral codes, or international conventions and prosecute their war in any way they deemed fit. “This is a dirty war,” they cried, “You don’t know what we’re up against. The terrorists are killing our women and children!” Then they would go out and bomb women and children. In response to any outcry they would simply blame the terrorists for using them as human shields. Hezbollah would lob the term back, saying “Israel and the U.S. are the biggest terrorists of all” before they fired off their rockets, aimed fair and square into the heart of civilian areas. The war of words is at least as important, if not more, than the war of wounds.
So in a soundbite, terror is the new black. It’s the new buzzword to strike terror into our hearts with one simple application. It joins a grand tradition of panic-inducing slurs such as Asian Invasion, Yellow Peril, Reds-Under-The-Bed, miscegenation, A.I.D.S., homosexuals and paedophiles. Anybody tarred with the terror brush is not only worthy of our utmost abhorrence but also unworthy of the slightest mercy. “Jihad Jack” and David Hicks are denied natural justice because terrorism is deemed beyond the pale and therefore special rules apply. We prove ourselves completely terrorised when we allow our hard-won freedom and civil liberties to be slashed away at the stroke of a “well-meaning” pen. If this is a War On Terror, then I think Terror has already won.
| 142 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by Damo
One thing that has been left out was the growth industry of Terrorism experts. Where did all these experts come from? What were they doing before 911?
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Comment by The Daily Sonnet
The Daily Sonnet
Lots of Sonnets
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by backseat sniper
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
It's ironic that I wrote a post on Dante's inferno today and in him one of the most cruel punishments is reserved for Neutrals- those who refuse to take a clear stance in a grave crisis.
The idea that "If you're not with us, you're against us" is how you many people who might otherwise be neutral end up supporting al-qaeda.
Not criticising you personally, but this sounds too obtuse if not revloting. People'd comfortbaly not take sides but becuase they are forced, they'd rather choose al-qaeda.
Comment by nagster
Cenacle
Comment by backseat sniper
Your assertion about people killed in Iraq is exactly the kind of language I am talking about. They were not killed "same as sept 11" they were killed in a war. started by the US. labelling the enemy "terrorists" adds moral weight that removes US guilt. If your country is invaded and your family is killed, you don't care if it was one side killing 5 civilians to kill 3 soldiers or the other side killing 10 civillians to kill 6 soldiers. You just want the killing to stop.
Killing with a carbomb is no more despicable than killing with a cluster bomb from 30,00 feet.
go to www.iraqbodycount.org to see in-depth analysis of the body count. currently it stands around 45,000 people killed
Comment by Suedehead
Unless you are a complete conspiracy theorist (aka nuts) you would have to agree that the Israelis
and Americans gain nothing by, and probably do not intend to kill civilians. Civilian deaths are a
by-product of their actions but not the main target.
Whereas Hizbolah, the IRA and Al Queda have as their main target the death and terror of civilians.
Terrorism is simply a tactic that can be used by any group at any time. However, I don't believe it is a
tactic that has been employed by the Israeli or US government in recent times.
Comment by backseat sniper
Your argument that the US and Israeli's don't intend to kill civilians is debatable. You take it on good faith that their intentions are good but I don't have that much faith. however, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and agree they aren't aiming to kill civilians as their main target. My point is that even if their intention is to kill soldiers, the end result is massive civilian death. terror works because you can get maximum effect from minimal equipment . the terrorist might bomb a bar where soldiers hang out and kill a bunch of innocents at the same time. the US and Israel bomb a building that hezbollah are firing rockets from and kill all the people in that building and the one next door. same result, civilian death. their intention becomes a moot point because they both cause innocents to die. In the recent war in lebanon, thousands of rockets were fired into Israeli residential areas with the intention of killing civilians. that is abhorrent we can all agree. the Israeli's respond by bombing whole cities into the ground. I believe that is also abhorrent, regardless of their "good intentions". The end result was about 1000 people killed in Lebanon with around 200,000 made homeless. and in Israel? wait for it.... 75 dead (source bbc news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5242732.stm)
then you can look at the cluster bombs that leave millions of unexploded ordinances lying around for the kids to play with, which will kill, maim and injure for years to come. you can say that they are "intended" for killing soldiers all you like but the effect is that they will kill children.
My point is that use of the word terror blinds us to the evil of war. I don't think hezbollah are any worse than the Israeli's in this. It's like if a man comes at you with a gun, you kick him in the balls. Then he complains
"Fight fair!"
Comment by Suedehead
when you try to punch me and hit my mum.
Comment by backseat sniper
I guess you're saying terrorists use human shields? well I won't bite because a) I don't agree that they do that and more importantly b) it's outside the scope of this argument.
My argument is purely about using a gun vs kicking in the balls. I'm arguing that one is no worse than the other and that for people who are desperate, balls are the logical target. If we bring mothers in, it confuses the matter and in no time someone will say "no I'll fuck YOUR mother!" and the argument will degenerate into the same tit-for-tat that caused all the problems in the first place. let's keep it nice...