FREE ESSAY ON REAL FACE OF TERRORISM

REAL FACE OF TERRORISM

Terrorism in the Webster's New American Dictionary is defined as "the systematic use of
intense fear as a means of coercion." In this day and age, the term terrorism is more
than just the use of intense fear as a means of coercion but includes the use of
terrorism as a means of revenge and pure sport and also as a means of suppression. While
the dictionaries definitions says that it is the use coercion to promote certain
ideologies, some of the most cleverly hidden terrorism today is the terrorism used to
suppress some ideologies or certain ethnic groups or societies. The popular image of
terrorism is of extremist groups trying to rebel or promote their ideologies by blowing
up airplanes, buses, government buildings, or taking hostages. By defining terrorism
thoroughly, we can begin to look at what terrorism is really about.
The use of terror is usually a tool to promote ideologies according to the dictionary but
what about the use of terror for revenge? After the Serb withdrawal from Kosovo this past
month, there was a rash of terrorist acts committed by Albanians against Serbs. The Serb
civilian population of Kosovo was not a threat to the Albanians but the violence against
them was not one of coercion but of revenge. The hostage crisis at the American embassy
in Teheran twenty years ago was another example of terrorism based on revenge. While that
incident involved the political theme of the revolution in Iran and the authorities used
it to promote their Islamic ideology, those that carried out the hostage crisis took over
the embassy in a fit of rage and under the euphoria of anger against anything American.
They had already achieved their goal, which was to rid the American backed Shah who ruled
the country with terror; the hostage crisis was merely an outburst of revenge against the
west. Terrorism is not just coercion, but it also revenge. The use of terror to punish
the victim and remind them of what the enactor of the terror had felt. There are other
examples of terrorism that fit under revenge but those are a combination of revenge and
political or social coercion.
Revenge motivated extremist groups with political or social coercion are well publicized
but how are their actions different from that of states? The terrorism that comes to mind
is of the PLO hijacking Israeli airplanes or Ben Laden bombing the American embassies in
Africa. What can motivate someone to strap bombs on their bodies and blow themselves and
others to make a statement? To understand this motivation, we have to look at the
conditions the terrorist lives under. Since 1948, the Palestinians have been continuously
robbed of their land and self-rule while being subjugated to third-class citizenry and
terror. The Israeli government is the only one in the world that openly admits to
sponsoring assassinations for their own state security. The Israeli military and police
use torture and arrest to place the discourage the Palestinian people from free thought
and the right to the democratic process. When an individual commits a terrorist act,
their families are punished by having their homes destroyed in what Israel claims as
collective punishment. The G7 (the world's most powerful countries) signed a declaration
in 1996, which clearly states; We reaffirm our absolute condemnation of terrorism in all
its forms and manifestations, regardless of its perpetrators or motives. Terrorism is a
heinous crime, and there must be no excuse or exception in bringing its perpetrators to
justice. Isn't Israel's use of assassinations, torture, systematic arrest, and collective
punishment terrorism? Doesn't the G7 claim that no excuse or exception for terrorism will
be tolerated, yet Israel remains the largest recipient of American foreign aid which
includes military aid. The acts of the PLO, which is only reacting to Israel's
provocation, are considered terrorist yet those of Israel are only considered security
measures. This double standard and one sided view does injustice to the definition of
terrorism because it is not used even-handed.
Israel's actions can be logically equated to being terrorism which leads to the question
of whether American foreign policy is also a form of terrorism or not. Take the sanctions
against Iraq, for example, which is heavily endorsed and enforced by the United States
against the will of the majority of the world. The sanctions restrict food and medicine
imports to Iraq in order to bring down Saddam Hussein. The result is more than 1.2
million deaths, according to the very organization that began the sanctions, of which the
majority were children under the age of five. According to Bruce Hoffman's recently
published Inside Terrorism, terrorism is "ineluctably political in aims and motives,
violent or, equally important, threatens violence; designed to have far-reaching
psychological repercussions beyond immediate victim of target, conducted by an
organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure
(whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); and perpetrated by a
sub-national group or non-state entity". America's motive in the sanctions become
diminished when Saddam Hussein's popularity goes up in Iraq everytime the U.S. bombs his
country. Hoffman is claiming that terrorism is perpetuated by non-state or sub-national
groups but America's action in Iraq fits the profile Hoffman describes. Non-state
entities or sub-national groups, then, should not be the only entities labeled terrorist
but that term should be extended to all perpetuators of terror. 
During this past century, terrorism has shifted from being anarchy based to a new array
of terrorism rooted in newer ideologies. The expansion of democracy to the third world
along with the rise of fascism, communism, totalitarianism, various religious ideals, and
capitalism have rapidly changed the societies of the world and this change has been and
continues to be challenged by foes of the ideologies. While the Webster's definition of
terror as being and intense fear remains the same, the second part to terrorism that
states it as being a means of coercion doesn't describe many different kinds of
terrorism. Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, said that "terrorism
could be defined as committing of various violent illegal acts which physically or
mentally harm the well being of an individual or group of people with the aims of
promoting a political or religious ideology". The Kurdish terrorists that Ocalan lead
have been fighting the Turkish government for civil rights and recognition for their
ethnic brethren in Turkey but the terrorism carried out by Ocalan's group didn't mean to
coerce the Turks into accepting their own brand of rule of promoting their communist
belief. Merely the Kurdish Workers' Party wanted to punish the Turks and incite violence
in order to achieve its own goals. 
Terrorism, in my view, is the use of violence meant to enforce a certain political
ideology or to rebel against another. Terrorism is also violent revenge against certain
political or social movements. An example of rebelling against a certain idea would be
the Palestinian group, Hamas, and its violence against Israel over the peace process they
are against. In the case of revenge, the bombings carried out by KLA or other Albanian
groups this past summer against the Serb population of Kosovo is a fascinating example of
how terrorism can take the form of pure revenge. The Albanians are not trying to coerce
or enforce an idea upon the Serbs, instead they are seeking just plain old revenge. This
example of terrorism is different, however, than the other more common form of terrorism
which is political terrorism.
According to Bruce Hoffman's recently published Inside Terrorism, terrorism is
"ineluctably political in aims and motives, violent or, equally important, threatens
violence; designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond immediate
victim of target, conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or
conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia);
and perpetrated by a sub-national group or non-state entity". 
In this age, terrorism has been the label given to the sub-national groups or non-state
entities that have used terror to commercialize their ideologies, still, what about the
terrorism perpetuated by states and governments? Hoffman's definiton of terrorism begins
to describe modern terrorism accurately but then he limits it to violence committed by
sub-national group or non-state entities. Although the overwhelming belief is that
terrorism is violence by non-state entities, this idea is one-sided in hypocritical. If
terrorism is to enact or threaten violence designed to have far-reaching psychological
repercussion beyond the intended victim, then why aren't the economic sanctions against
Iraq considered terrorism? Is it because they are sanctions endorsed by the British and
American governments and they are not the form of terrorism or is it because the
sanctions are not the work of non-state entities. The G7 (the world's most powerful
countries) signed a declaration in 1996, which clearly states; 
We reaffirm our absolute condemnation of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations,
regardless of its perpetrators or motives. Terrorism is a heinous crime, and there must
be no excuse or exception in bringing its perpetrators to justice.