Terrorism and the Modern World

Terrorism. This word (and all others associated with it) has so captured the lives of many ordinary folk post 9/11. Routinely people are told to be vary of terrorists, vigilant of terrorist activities and if they fail to do so, they maybe victims of terrorism.

But what is terrorism?. C Douglas Lummis describes it as such:

Terrorism is not the name of a crime. It is the name of a tactic, simply put "a mode of combat". The acts that constitute terrorism are in the same category as other modes of combat such as frontal assault, flank attack, siege, saturation bombing and so on. Some of them are legal, some of them arent, but we do not call them by different names depending on who does them. A non state entity using terrorism as a tactic is in no way different from the state doing the same.

So then what makes a Terrorist? A terrorist is one who uses the tactic of terrorism. He is a terrorist because he uses terrorism, not because something intrinsic in him, just as a criminal is a criminal because he commits a crime and not because he is a born criminal. So just like criminals are determined by the crimes they commit, terrorists should also have the same leeway.

Sadly the things as they stand today are different. President Bush has routinely stated that the Terrorist is evil. The word "evil" is not a legal term. No one can convict you for being evil. Evil is a religious concept. An evil person is not someone who has taken a wrong path, say as a criminal would have, but he/she is intrinsically bad. A person who has come into this world, for the express purpose of doing bad. You put "d" in front of evil and you get the enemy of God. Nothing can get as bad as that.


In John Walker Lyndhs case for example, the question raised during his trial in the (US) newspapers was not about what crimes, if any he had committed..rather it was about whether he was a terrorist or an ordinary American boy. Same is the case with the missing persons in Pakistan. "Terrorists" are not allowed legal facilities such as a lawyer, fair trial and so on because they are "terrorists" thus allowing Pervaiz Musharraf to pick up and sell many "terrorists". Henceforth becoming the blued eyed boy of the west. Mullah Zaaef, the talibans ambassador, for example, had no diplomatic rights, because he was a terrorist. Thus despite him asking for diplomatic immunity..he was sold to the Americans by the bastion against terrorists ie. Pervaiz Musharraf.

Same is the case with the "terrorists" in Guantanamo Bay. They are not to be tried under civil laws, because they are "terrorists".


This whole scenario thus brings forth a very frightening point. If people are terrorists; they can be placed in a separate category. The important

distinction being that this determination is made BEFORE a legal point of view regarding guilt, comes forth.

But while contemporary law doesn't judge what a person is, in the past there have been instances where courts did claim to make this judgment. One example is the witch trials. If the person was a witch, then anything else they did was secondary. The logic dictating the present terrorists is also the same. Thus we have the large amount of "suspected" terrorists dying everyday and the total glee with which it is accepted.




Adapted from Terror and the Terrorists ( The dissenting Knowledge pamphlet series) by C Douglas Lummis