Discussion of Terrorism
This piece is the better portions of a Discussion of Terrorism that occurred between several Honors Fellows at a prestigeious University. This debate transpired in April of 2002, but it’s relevance to today’s events is oblivous.
[Excerpt from Ryan P. in a Discussion of Terrorism]
It seems to me that the message that our nation is trying to send to the world is that if you kill with good ole’ bullets and bombs you’re a terrorist, but if you do it with fancy tanks, helicopters, and cruise missiles (not to mention atomic bombs) it’s okay.Don’t misunderstand me folks, I don’t advocate smashing planes into buildings or strapping yourself with homemade explosives as a means for social change. There are other ways to bring about a little justice now and then (Take Ghandi for example, in my opinion one of the greatest political figures in this century). But, it appears that our media system is taking a perfectly meaningful word such as “terrorism” and turning it into a buzz word like “Communist” was during the cold war days. “Terrorism” no longer describes violence against an empowered group for political purposes but the creeping evil of the modern age, foreigners waiting around every corner to smash our latest Lego creation or tear the heads off of our GI Joes and Barbies.
[Current ARO Staffer Respose]
Ryan
I have to call into question your definition of terrorism:
“Terrorism” no longer describes violence against an empowered group for political purposes but the creeping evil of the modern age…
You seem to be missing the oblivious root word: terror. Terror-ism is the creation of an OVERWHELMINGLY INTENSE FEAR often (but not always) through violence in the hopes of bringing about a political/religious/other goal. The whole point is that the “target group” feels afraid not empowered as you claim. So a “creeping evil” is not that off target since it invokes a fear response.
Examples:
- A handful of men with box cutters made millions of Americans AFRAID to fly for months
- A youth with C4 made Israelis AFRAID to shop for food.
In war you are afraid sure — afraid that your government will fall to the aggressor, afraid that you won’t successful overthrow the dictator, afraid that you will die fighting for what you believe. You are NOT afraid that the water you drink is poison, that your son will be blown-up in daycare, that the bridge you are driving across will collapse…
Now “innocent civilians” die in war. Our “smart” bombs didn’t always hit the right target in the Gulf War. Civilians are mistaken for the enemy. The difference is INTENTION. It is a tragedy to miss the enemy bunker and hit a school. It is madness to aim for the school in the first place.
Let me put this in a different context to bring out the meaning. In a bit, I will be driving to school for 315. I could:
A) Die in a random accident after my tire blows out
B) Die in a car crash with someone that’s DUI
C) Die in a gun battle with police because they recognize me from yesterday’s bank robbery where I shot a security guard
D) Die after a splinter faction of the Ford Motor company targets my Honda CRX as a heretic, fills their car with explosive chemicals, hunts me down on my way to learn about different points of view, and slams into my car repeatedly until we both go up in a big fireball - in the hopes that people will stop buying those foreign cars (Ford Focus Yah!)
E) Survive, go to 315, and finally graduate!
I hope that shows the difference between accidents, avoidable accidents, police actions, terrorism, and 7th-year-senorism.
Now I understand the role of guerrilla warfare in a military conflict (as well as marketing) but I must disagree with true terrorism. I also want to point out that I AM NOT SIDING WITH THE ISRAELIES. I’m sure they have done bad things too. I just have to jump up and down and say “NO!!!” When people try to justify evil with past evils done to them. Can anyone say IRA?