Friday 13 January 2017

Fire with Fire


Fire with Fire
Cyril C. House
Political Philosophy
01/11/2016


Fire with Fire

    On September 11, 2001, more than 3000 people were killed when a group of individuals hijacked several passenger planes flying over the United States and crashed them into coordinated key targets, namely the Twin Towers and the Pentagon (History.com, 2010). On February 09, 1996, two people were killed, dozens more injured, and property worth in excess of two hundred and fifteen million dollars was destroyed when members of the Irish Republican Army detonated a fertilizer bomb weighing several tonnes in East London’s Docklands (Kushner, 2003). In the late eighteenth-century, facing economic collapse, the French peasantry rose up and overthrew the established feudal monarchy and established a, however temporary, democratic state (“French Revolution,” 2016)(Tankard, 2009). What do these events have in common with one another? Which of these events, if any, were justified? And whether just or not, were any of these events ‘right’? The thing what is in common between these three events is that they are all cases of terrorist attacks. Terrorism is a very complex phenomena, and little is agreed upon when talking about it in the academic community. In the following paragraphs I will argue that terrorism is not always reprehensible, for although violence can never be just there are cases in which it is the right course of action. I will begin with a conceptual analysis of exactly what terrorism is, or seems to be, after-which I will proceed to distinguish between the two extremes of the terror spectrum. Finally I will address a middle point on the terror spectrum, which will touch lightly on the idea that we are each products of terrorism regardless of how we feel about terror itself. Now, let us begin.

Political Violence
    So what is terrorism? From the root word ‘terror’ it is plain to see that it involves fear. Fear of what though? Fear of losing one’s privileges and standard of living? Fear of death? These fears in particular are most pertinent to the discussion of terror as an -ism. Along with the intuitive notion of terrorism comes an underlying allusion to violence. When one hears that terrorists may live among them one of the first thoughts that comes to mind is violence and death, and perhaps also a notion of innocence. Innocence as it is contextually tied to a civilian population. Violence is an effect of conflict, and so terrorism must too be tied to conflict. A question which now comes to mind is: What does a civilian population have to do with the conflicts of a radical group? And a further question: Who or what is it that these radical groups are conflicting with in the first place? In Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction Charles Townshend states that “‘terrorist’ is a description that has almost never been voluntarily adopted by any individual or group. It is applied to them by others, first and foremost by the governments of states they attack” (2002). From this statement one is able to understand that when groups attack states, the government of that state then labels the group as ‘terrorist’. So terrorists are in conflict with states. Terrorism seems to be a form of political violence. This answers our second of the previous two questions, now to tend to the first: What does a civilian population have to do with the political conflict of terrorism? Well any government is subject, to some degree or another, to the beliefs and opinions of its citizens. In a democratic government this is particularly true due to the implicit control of future governmental structures via the democratic process: the idea that control is essentially in the hands of the citizens and the government is simply a manifestation of the citizens needs and desires, as well as a supra-structure to provide for all citizens (more or less) equally. However other forms of government are also subject, to a lesser degree, to the beliefs and opinions of their citizens. On the other end of the political spectrum, if a totalitarian regime acts entirely out of sync with the people's mode of thought then they could very well be inciting an internal overthrow of their own power structure. These governments too, must consider the beliefs and desires of their citizens. Therefore it is safe to assume that by manipulating the beliefs of the citizens, a group can thereby manipulate the actions of the government. This process is referred to as resonant mass, implying that the masses will resonate their fears outwards for the government to then pick up from them (Townshend, 2002). Let us now discuss the differences between some varying points along the terror spectrum.

The Terrorist
    The Terrorist, as we shall understand the term in the context of this article, is a proponent of indiscriminate killing. He considers all people to be ‘guilty’, to some degree or another, of supporting and enforcing the enemy-state and its structures, under which they live. Therefore The Terrorist feels justified in, and so too tends to realize such acts as, bombing a crowded public square or utilizing a commercial passenger plane suicide-missile in order to attain the aims and goals of his party/group. The indiscriminate killing is the primary conditional of The Terrorist, rather than his beliefs regarding the justness of his actions, as there are surely instances of such indiscriminate attacks where the attacker did not believe the victims to be ‘guilty’ necessarily, but simply viewed such tactics as the most efficient means of achieving his goals. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is considered to be of type Terrorist. Mohammed is the member of the al-Qaeda terror group who is strongly believed to be the mastermind behind the 9/11 attack (Aryanfard, 2011)(Miniter, 2011).

The Freedom Fighter
    On the other end of the spectrum we find The Freedom Fighter. The Freedom Fighter is a terrorist who is fighting for some more-or-less noble goal. For example, the perpetrators of the French Revolution would be considered of type Freedom Fighter because although they killed, maimed, beheaded, and drowned,  they did so in the name of freedom from the oppressive tyranny of the French Monarchy at the time. So what makes The Freedom Fighter so different from the terrorist? Not much in one sense, for they each kill and terrorize. Although in another sense quite a bit differs, for The Freedom Fighter does not kill indiscriminately because not all people are ‘guilty’ in his eyes. He identifies between ‘with me’ and ‘against me’. Anyone considered ‘against me’ is the enemy and must be either killed or converted, while anyone ‘with me’ is generally safe from being targeted for harm. The Freedom Fighter is commonly viewed as valiant and courageous to be standing up to the powers that be. Unlike The Terrorist, who is commonly regarded as morally-bankrupt and psychologically-disturbed.   

Misrepresentation of Political Violence
    Now that we have taken a very brief look at the two extremes of the terror spectrum you may be wondering what is in the middle of this range. Well let us look at the rubric again: terrorism is a form of political violence and terrorist is a label which is applied to a group or individual when they attack a state, in reference to the fearful repercussions due to that attack. So to consolidate these two points let us say that ‘terrorists are political actors who use violence against a state’. Who else can we think of that fits these two requirements: 1. A political actor 2. Uses violence against a state? Well the most obvious answer to the first condition is that governments are political actors. And the second condition? Do governments use violence against states? Yes. Does this mean that governments are terrorists? I  believe so, although certainly my opinion is vulnerable to heated debate. A certain such counter-argument would express that states alone may legitimately utilize force, and therefore states are not terrorist, yet only those who are not states and using violence are terrorists. At which point we would need to say that terrorists are political actors who use violence against a state, but are not themself a state. I do not find this argument convincing however. This implies that when states use force they are just in doing so, and when non-states use force they are unjust in doing so. The virtuous world-order will attempt to maximize the justness of its charge and minimize the unjustness. This then means that when the French lower classes stood up and revolted against the oppressive tyranny of King Louis XVI, they were wrong to do so and they should have been stopped, for they were not a state and therefore their violence was unjustified. As for the argument of the states, that their violence against others is always legitimate and therefore just: I do not find offensive-violence to be just in the least (as is the type of violence we see a great deal of, still today: the US invasion of the Middle East, the Syrian indiscriminate bombing of ISIS-held territory (Syria), the US invasion of Syria and concurrent threats towards Russia (Zuesse, 2016)). As Plato argues justice to be in the first book of Republic “if men are injured, they must necessarily become more unjust . . . [f]or it is not the work of heat to make cold, but the opposite . . . Nor is it the work of the good to injure, but the opposite . . . And [since] the just man is good . . . [t]hen it is not the work of the just man to injure . . . whether to injure a friend or anyone else, anyone- but that is the work of the unjust man” (1999).  This Platonic support would suggest that the only justifiable violence is violence in self-defense, and only to such a degree as is necessary to cessate the incoming violence at any given time.

Conclusion
    We have discussed herein some very complex issues, and in a very condensed manner. We originally set out to provide clarity for the argument that terrorism is never just, although there can be times when such injustice is the right course of action. We looked at two extremes of the terror spectrum, after which we touched upon a seeming gray area between the two, which is the offensive tactics employed by legitimate state powers. Terror as a tactic is used by illegitimately-sovereign groups to act against their legitimately-sovereign opponents (al-Qaeda 9/11 attack: unjust and unrighteous; the French Revolution: unjust, yet righteous), it is used by legitimate states against their illegitimate opponents (Syrian attacks on ISIS: unjust, yet righteous), and so too is it used by legitimate states against other legitimate states (US occupation of Syria: unjust and unrighteous). So to address the umbrella question Is terrorism always reprehensible? No it is not, it is much too intricate of a phenomena, and happens much too commonly to be able to condemn all acts of terrorism as ‘bad’. Terror is everywhere around us, we are all living in a world that was forged in the fires of terrorisms-past. For as long as we fight one another there will be terror, and for as long as there is terror there will be blatant injustices in the world. But as I mentioned in the beginning, sometimes terrorism, although unjust, must be the right course of action. But how to define between the sides of that very narrow line, which has been drawn upon the precipice of a very steep slope? We must continue to be vigilant in our pursuit of justice and righteousness, for we may never know how wrong something is until too long after it has already been done.









References

French Revolution (2016). . In Funk and Wagnall’s New World Encyclopedia
History.com (2010). 9/11 attacks - facts & summary. history.com. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/topics/9-11-attacks
Miniter, Richard. (2011). Mastermind: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Sentinel. Retrieved October 20, 2016 from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?sid=53e61487-20d0-478c-892b-ceecc8b1d142%40sessionmgr4006&vid=1&hid=4110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=000208711600031&db=edswss
Plato. (n.d.). Great Dialogues of Plato (W. Rouse, Trans.). New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Syria 2015/2016 | Amnesty International. (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2016, from https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/middle-east-and-north-africa/syria/report-syria/
Tankard, Keith (2009). The Age of Revolutions: France after the Revolution. knowledge4africa.com. Retrieved from http://www.worldhistory.knowledge4africa.com/modern/revolution-04.jsp
Townsend, Charles (2002). The Touble With Terrorism. Terrorism: A Very Short Introduction. Retrieved from print.
Zuesse, Eric. Dangerous Crossroads: U.S. Invades Syria, And Warns Russia ... (n.d.). Retrieved October 21, 2016, from http://www.globalresearch.ca/dangerous-crossroads-u-s-invades-syria-and-warns-russia/5542083

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)