<nettime> Terrorism 101 Part One

["Lachlan Brown" <lachlan@london.com>]

>   i have been wondering what the definition of 'terrorist'
>   is.... as it remains undefined in the public sphere. so far:
> 
>   terrorist = terrorist
> 
>   terrorist = evil
> 
> 
>   ...?
> 
> 
>   terrorist = protester?
> 
>   terrorist = dissenter?
> 
>   terrorist = difference?

Brian Carrol raises an important question. Just what and whom are we going
to war with? How can we choose whose side we are non when its not clear
where the sides are?

'Terrorist' is not such an arbitrary word. It has a history. Terrorists of
one generation are often celebrated as 'freedom fighters' by the next and
finally revered by a third generation as 'Founding Fathers'. That is,
'terrorists' are people within 'National Liberation Armies' engaged in
illegal or civil wars against an empire or a state for the purposes of
carving out a Nation State. Nelson Mandela of the African National
Congress, now President of South Africa is a good example. The first Prime
Minister of Israel another. 'Terrorist' appears in the 1930s to describe
individuals and groups (mainly in British India) fighting for national
freedoms from the British Empire by the use of violence.  
The word appeared fixed in its modern form in press campaigns and
parliamentary debates about Zionists in Palestine attempting to create an
independent state called Israel within the borders of the British
protectorate, 1945-1947. Dozens of British servicemen, colonial
administrators and innocent civilians were killed in acts of 'terrorism',
including the bombing of the King David Hotel. This set the pattern for
spectacular acts of terrorism in many different countries where wars for
national liberation were occuring: in the British Empire - India, Malaysia,
Kenya, etc. etc. and subsequently in Middle Eastern countries once more,
focussed on the Question of Palestine (Kidnapping and shootings, bombing
campaigns meant to disrupt commerce or national events, and campaigns
intended to inflict casualties on innocent civilians, have, as acts of
'terror' been justified in Nationalist terms.) Acts of terrorism were media
events, they were specifically intended to 'get into media' as a way of
publicising to the dominant power the grievances of the oppressed.
'Terrorism' was the last resort to armed conflict by citizen 'freedom
fighters' or by people denied the rights of citizenship. The point of
'terrorism' was to harm both the military and commercial infrastructure of
the oppressing power, often an Empire, but also a State, and to include
civilians in the damage to 'bring home' to the hegemonic power and its
citizens the grievances of national liberation agencies and occupied
peoples. Attacks were made, and civilians were included, to 'get into the
media' of the oppressor, and thereby into the parliamentary debates of the
occupying power. These attacks were often reactions to similar attacks by
the occupying power which were unrecorded, that had no 'history'. Cycles of
'terror' were created which ended only with the expulsion of the occupying
power and the foundation of a new state. The list is an impressive one:
India, Israel, Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa, Vietnam, <add your country
here> and the list of people who were branded 'terrorist' an equally
prestigeus one: from Nelson Mandela in the 60s to, well, add the 'founding
fathers' of your state here.

The act of terror is usually accompanied by a 'claim of responsibility' by
the national liberation army or sympathetic group. No such claim has been
made by any group in the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon. This, by
itself, suggests we ought to be thoughtful and intelligent in a response.
The most obvious candidate, or at least the American Government's favourite
candidate Bin Laden refuses responsibility. The Taliban have not been quick
to issue their claim of responsibility. This is highly unusual in the
history of 'terrorism' and is not likely to be attributed to fear of
reprisal by the hegemonic power. The attack appeared to be attributed to a
pan-Islamic nationalism, but Islamic nationalism has been contradictory in
its reaction. Something is deeply wrong with the picture that is beginning
to emerge. The geo-politics of terror and counter-terror appear so
convoluted, so intertwined, that perhaps we will never get the true
picture, except by piecing together the patterns of who or which powers
actually benefit from the reactions to the act of terror.

 The President of the United States has issued an ultimatum that is
impossible to agree with (though most Western Nations appear more than
eager to agree with it) and that legally speaking, with  regard to the
constitution of the US, as well as under international law, he has no right
to issue. How can we make a decision about whose side we are on when we do
not know the sides? And what business has a President of the United States
in imposing this choice not merely upon an international community of
nations, but upon the people of the United States of America? Basically, it
is unconstitutional of him to assume that we agree with his position,
whatever it is, or we agree with 'the terrorist' and therefore are required
to make some move or clearly state our position about whose side we are on.
The Fifth amendment covers this sort of thing as I recall. Could an
American familiar with the constitution clear this up for us?

Whatever group is responsible for the attack of September 11th 2001,
whichever country and people bear the brunt of retaliation, whichever of
our rights as citizens of whichever country are eroded, one outcome may be
a very American coup. Perhaps the global war we are on the brink of
descending into, whose outcome will be the end of all of the rights and
benefits it was begun to maintain, apparently, is merely a contest between
different arms of the National Security state and their international
affiliations. Perhaps, whoever was behind the attack on the WTC and
Pentagon and whatever the motives, the outcome will be a very American
Coup.



Some Notes:

A dissenter can not be a 'terrorist'. A dissenter employs existing or
historical rights of dissent often inscribed in the constitution of his or
her country to extend rights or to highlight the erosion of rights.

A protestor protests to extend rights through non violent means and a non
violent platform. He or she becomes a 'rioter' if violence occurs. Rioting
is covered by the criminal codes of most countries and should not
necessarily involve NATO… . 

Difference, discursively speaking,  is created by the very forces that
would seek to erase difference. 

Nice to see that the consensus the worlds media seemed to be achieving is
beginning to be questioned by media in general.

I'll write again soon on the Anti-Terrorist Law in the UK since this has
clearly dumned- down criticism and dissent from Britain, and the British
Anti-Terrorist legislation seems likely to be the successor model for anti
terrorist legislation in Europe as a whole as well as in the US.

Lachlan

http://third.net
http://difference.ca
http://www.coalition.org.uk

-----Original Message-----
From: brian carroll <human@electronetwork.org>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:43:02 -0800
To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
Subject: Re: <nettime> moral colonization

 <...>

-- 

____________________________________________________
Talk More, Pay Less with Net2Phone Direct(R), up to 1500 minutes free! 
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?143 



Powered by Outblaze

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net