WTF is Terrorism?

Claudia Ciobanu asks on her blog the question "What the hell is terrorism?".

She

prefers to use the word violence, which allows for notions of different types of violence

in stead of terrorism, which I disagree completely because terrorism is an aim not a means. I wrote:

The biggest difference between terrorism and other forms of violence is that terrorism targets civilians. The groups using terrorism know, that they are too weak to win a fight with the enemy in the open and therefore they target civilians though trying to build enough pressure to achieve their aim or at least gain more support from their own community.

Are the Palestinians terrorists? As a whole not. But of course there are a lot of terrorist groups in Palestine. Is Hamas a terrorist organisation. Yes and no. Yes, they have used terrorist attacks but not exclusively. Life is seldom black and white.

You write, that ‘our’ politicians create fear. Which is also simplistic. Of course there are some politicians who use the threat from Islam to get more votes. But on the other hand, it can not be denied, that there are Islamic groups who are willing to attack us (the European public) and some already have.

To which two replies I wrote:

apostolisfotiadi writes, that “it is not useful or easy to define terrorism”. Still this was the question of Claudia Ciobano and even the title of her article.
I do believe, it is not only useful, it is necessary to distinguish between terrorism and other acts of violence. It might not be very easy in every case, but in law, facts are often disputed (sorry, here my not being native English speaking hampers me).
For some acts of violence, it can disputed, if the label terror is correct or not, but others and I believe most, can be labelled easily.
According to wikipedia the key criterias are violence, fear, political goal, targeting of non-combatants and therefore illegitimacy.
I agree, that terror and terrorism has been used a lot; sometimes just simplifying sometimes like anti-Semitism it is used as a label to quiet opposition.
apostolisfotiadi simplifies a lot. He writes that according to Clausewitz civilians are the centre of warfare as if Clausewitz suggested mass slaughter to win a war.
He also suggested, the Food for Oil program was a tool of the UN to kill as many Iraqis as possible. The idea behind the Food for Oil program was to allow Iraq to sell Oil and with the revenue buy food and medicine. Not weapons as Saddam Hussein probably would have. That it failed does not mean, that the intentions were bad or that the aim was unrealistic. It was just bad government on the UN and Iraqi side.
I am not saying, that I agree with GWB nor think the situation in Iraq has changed for the better. But a lot of critics of the US seem to forget, that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and has used WMD against his own people. And that Osama Bin Laden has attacked the West more than once and will continue to do so till he dies. And that there are Muslim terrorists attacking civilians in New York, Madrid, London and in many other places.
I can understand, that there are a lot of people, who say, the US never should have invaded Iraq. Or who say, they have invaded Iraq, but should leave a.s.a.p. But what I don’t understand is when these same people who protest when Iraqi civilians die, rejoice in terrorist attacks in Europe or US.
In Iraq, a civil war is happening or at least is at the very verge of happening. If the US leave, there will be further attacks between Shiites, Sunni and Kurds. The Shiites as the largest group will win with the support of Iran whilst Saudi Arabia will try to support the Sunnis and Turkey will try to take control of the north of Iraq.
Any talk of all problems going away, just because the US go, is nonsense.
apostolisfotiadi misses further points. On the one hand, we know that there are also non Muslim terrorist organisations such as IRA, RAF and ETA in Europe, Aum Shinrikyo in Japan and Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka. At least the first four are no real threat anymore. So the only real danger comes from Muslim terrorist groups.
Once again, terrorism is not just a word for Muslim freedom fighters. Only a minority of the acts of violence from Iraqi/Muslim fighters in Iraq is directed against the US invasion force and its allies. And the situation before the US led invasion was not as in paradise. Nor were the differences between Shiites and Sunnis caused by the US invasion.
Democracy and freedom of Speech as well as other Human rights are worth fighting for. Even killing for.

I'll sure get punished for using the last sentence.

Inside view from Pakistan

For the NZZ, Shehar Bano Khan, reporter for the Pakistani but English written newspaper dawn, writes about her view of the nature of Islam in her country. As I wrote about a similar topic some days ago, I would like to share her thoughts with you.

A little bit of background information. Since the independence, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan has its share of problems. At its foundation, Pakistan consisted of the Pakistan we know today and Bangladesh being separated by over 1600 kilometres. Even though both parts had and have a majority of Muslims, they were different tribes. Jinnah, Pakistan’s first President declared Urdu to be the state language which left the Bangladesh who spoke Bengali on the outside and thus deepening tensions between the two parts

In 1956 Pakistan had its first constitution with Urdu and Bengali as state languages but there was no stability as four prime ministers took office in two years. Iskander Mirza declared martial law only to be overthrown by Ayub Khan, the first Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army.

Ayub changed the constitution in 1961 and got elected in 1965. Even though the vote doesn’t come close to what we would call democratic, they were the only presidential elections in Pakistan up to date.

In 1971 the two parts of Pakistan fought and with Indian support, Bangladesh gained independence. After the fighting stopped, the generals handed the power to Zulfikar al Bhutto. 1977, General Zia-ul-Haq took power and had the former president executed for authorizing the murder of a political opponent. During his rule, Pakistan became an Islamic country.

In 1985, the Zia-ul-Haq handed power back to a puppet but the puppet became to independent and conveniently died on a plane crash.

A short democratic period followed with Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who were each elected twice and removed from office on charges of corruption. Benazir Bhutto is of course the daughter of Zulfikar al Bhutto. Therefore her dislike of the army needs no further explanation.

Since 1999 Pervez Musharraf rules Pakistan. As in China, the Army is not just the organisation, which protects the country from foreign foes, but is also one of the largest landowners and has a large part of the economy under direct control.

The fear of the Generals therefore is not just to loose power, but also to loose control over a huge industry and a lot of resources.

Lal Masjid, also known as the red mosque is located in Islamabad, Pakistan’s capital.

Zia-ul-Haq, as well as the Pakistani state security ISI had and have very close ties with the founder of Lal Masjid. During the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the mosque recruited and trained mujahedin.

After Abdullah (the founder) was assassinated in 1998, his sons Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid Ghazi took over the mosque, making it a centre for Islamist teaching and openly opposed the government, partly because its support for the US lead War on Terror.

During 2006 and the first half of 2007, the mosque's leaders set up a Sharia Law in the premises and occupied surrounding buildings.

After a lot of demonstrations and gun battles, Musharraf ordered the storming of the mosque, which resulted in about 70 militants and 8 soldiers killed.

But she denies, this incident to be a sign of Talibanisation of Pakistan. I read some of her articles online and some further of her colleges. One of them writes, that it is wrong of the Musharraf to try to get control over all his country and that the war of the Pakistani Army against the rebellious tribes in Pakistan can’t be won and therefore shouldn’t be fought.

I think, this is a very disturbing sign. What kind of country allows parts of its country to be occupied by militant forces and tries not to regain control over those regions?

Shehar Bano Khan writes, that sixty years of independence are no reason to celebrate, as Pakistan has never had found its peace and freedom. The ordinary people expect little from their leaders and it makes no difference, if they wear an uniform or not.

Islam, she continues, is just a scapegoat for Musharraf, to justify his rule. Receiving billions in aid from the US, he needs a Islamist threat to justify his rule. It is known, that Musharraf and his predecessors have through the secret service supported the Taliban. As well as the US have supported the Taliban in the past.

On the other hand, Islam has become a more important part of Pakistani politics than it was when Pakistan was founded. It is difficult to find the truth from here. I agree, that there were not many demonstrations after the storming of the Red Mosque and there were large demonstrations for Iftikhar Chaudhry, the High-Judged who was removed form office by Musharraf and since then has been reinstalled.

She admits, that there is a difference between rural and urban places. In the cities, the radical Islam has little influence. But on the countryside, the government is weak and radical Islam can profit from the weak state. A peasant reported, that he sent five out of seven of his children to madrasahs, the Islamistic schools and he receives support from Islamistic groups.

In the past, the religious parties have had little success. But as most of the regimes were either controlled by the Military or corrupt, Islamistic partys may, as in Palaestine, win future elections.

If the Army would accept such a victory or act as in Turkey is unknown.

10 soldiers beheaded by a Muslim terrorist group

I did not want to come back to this topic so soon. But here I am again, Muslim terrorists, this time in the Philippines, going by the abbreviation MILF where 14 governmental soldiers were killed. 10 of them were beheaded on July 12th. That’s how Muslims treat POWs and the same people rambling about Guantanamo stay silent. The soldiers were searching for Father Giancarlo Bossi, an Italian Priest, who has been abducted and has since been released by the Abu Sayyaf Group.