So I heard a lecture the other day about the modern definition of terrorism, and the comparison of what a General in war might do compared to what a terrorist does to achieve their ends.
Essentially the Professor was saying that both a 'terrorist' and a General will use fear as best they in order to achieve their ends, and the difference could not be rationally explained in terms of the means and type of terror that is used. As a civilian under attack, a midnight aerial bombardment is just as scary, if not more, than a random bombing of a market or whatever. He illustrated this point with various examples stretching back through history.
So, being as a General and a Terrorist both employ terror, what's the difference between them? Why is one OK in the eyes of most people an one so despised?
He proposed that the answer was legitimacy.
A General is legitimised by a Government or political entity of some type, normally a nation, which supports their actions. The greater the 'legitimising' body, the more OK people are with the actions of the General.
Traditionally, then, the counterpoint to this is a Terrorist, who is acting without a significant or popular legitimising body behind him.
Now this is interesting in terms of the GW's (and much of the media's) portrayal of the insurgency in Iraq, and indeed the much more widespread phenomena of Islamic 'terrorism' these days.
'But wait', I hear you cry, 'The suicide bombers and insurgents in Iraq arent popular! The average Iraqi doesn't want to be blown up, he just wants things back to normal!' You'd think, eh? Well, you'd apparently be wrong:
Given these figures, the general population of Iraq supports the attacks on US and British troops by these 'Terrorists'. Now as we said before, if you have a proper mandate, you arn't a terrorist. So these people would seem to represent a genuine, legitimate insurgency. Indeed, they have more support amongst their local population than the US forces now do in the states. Maybe the US and British arms should now correctly be called the Terrorists? :devil:
Seriously though, this shows how far devoid from reality the White House's position has become. How can America possibly expect to win, or even progress it's situation in Iraq and indeed the wider problem with extremist Islam if it cannot even frame the problem in realistic terms with itself? George Bush's simplistic view of the world is causing America to loose - loose lives, respect, and more importantly any chance of 'winning' this 'war', although even framing it in those terms seems increasingly pathetic and unrealistic. It's becoming like the war on drugs, an equally simplified, misunderstood and inappropriately reacted to situation that just ends up in making the problem worse than ever.
America, what are you going to do?
Essentially the Professor was saying that both a 'terrorist' and a General will use fear as best they in order to achieve their ends, and the difference could not be rationally explained in terms of the means and type of terror that is used. As a civilian under attack, a midnight aerial bombardment is just as scary, if not more, than a random bombing of a market or whatever. He illustrated this point with various examples stretching back through history.
So, being as a General and a Terrorist both employ terror, what's the difference between them? Why is one OK in the eyes of most people an one so despised?
He proposed that the answer was legitimacy.
A General is legitimised by a Government or political entity of some type, normally a nation, which supports their actions. The greater the 'legitimising' body, the more OK people are with the actions of the General.
Traditionally, then, the counterpoint to this is a Terrorist, who is acting without a significant or popular legitimising body behind him.
Now this is interesting in terms of the GW's (and much of the media's) portrayal of the insurgency in Iraq, and indeed the much more widespread phenomena of Islamic 'terrorism' these days.
'But wait', I hear you cry, 'The suicide bombers and insurgents in Iraq arent popular! The average Iraqi doesn't want to be blown up, he just wants things back to normal!' You'd think, eh? Well, you'd apparently be wrong:
This story has been widely reported in the UK and the Arab world, but funnily enough there arn't so many links in the American media. (There are a few though..)
Given these figures, the general population of Iraq supports the attacks on US and British troops by these 'Terrorists'. Now as we said before, if you have a proper mandate, you arn't a terrorist. So these people would seem to represent a genuine, legitimate insurgency. Indeed, they have more support amongst their local population than the US forces now do in the states. Maybe the US and British arms should now correctly be called the Terrorists? :devil:
Seriously though, this shows how far devoid from reality the White House's position has become. How can America possibly expect to win, or even progress it's situation in Iraq and indeed the wider problem with extremist Islam if it cannot even frame the problem in realistic terms with itself? George Bush's simplistic view of the world is causing America to loose - loose lives, respect, and more importantly any chance of 'winning' this 'war', although even framing it in those terms seems increasingly pathetic and unrealistic. It's becoming like the war on drugs, an equally simplified, misunderstood and inappropriately reacted to situation that just ends up in making the problem worse than ever.
America, what are you going to do?
