Froebel's International School
Islamabad, Pakistan 44000

Terrorism:  Can It Be Stopped Absent A Valid Definition And Can It Be Defined?
By Omer Kamal Aijazi
Grade 12, A-levels

 
 Kashmir, 6th March 2002, 10:15a.m:  "Leave him alone!"Aminah cried. Fear and apprehension gripped her as she watched the brutal invaders beat her only son to pulp.

 "This should teach you, not to mess with the government's plans," barked the intruder. His sniper rifle hung deftly across his shoulder and his hand tightly held onto a bamboo stick. The group of hounds threw the boy onto the floor and made out the door, giving Aminah a long wistful glance.

She shuddered. Abdullah, could barely make out his aggressors leave his cabin. His eyes glossy with tears and his head abound with incessant pain. He knew every bone of his frail body must have been broken, or crippled beyond repair. His only sin was that he took part in the rally outside the Indian army checkpoint demanding freedom for his land. Abdullah was full of anger.

 Palestine, 6th march, 2002, 10:16a.m: Ayesha was agitated and confused. She was only 8, but life had matured her far beyond her age. She couldn't believe that the blood soaked body pilled up on the ground in front of her was of her beloved dad. Ayesha was never good at making cursory judgments. So she took her time.

Then the facts began to sink in. She could still her those voices, those screams. The sounds felt 3-D, they were hurting her mind. She wished the Jewish security guard who shot her father would be abducted by aliens and then fed into a paper shredder. She wished everything would end. Suddenly there were no more dreams of cotton candy and Cinderella.
 
Ayesha felt so vulnerable. Ayesha felt so alone.
 
Afghanistan, 6th march, 2002, 10:17a.m:  Bilal lay on the grassy field, observing the clear crystalline sky. His parents sat nearby, not too far whispering softly to one another. Bilal grinned.
 
 Bilal lay transfixed in his position as a B-12 bomber hovered over ahead. Suddenly there was this roar and then this blinding light and then this explosion. Then everything went blank.
 
 It just took three minutes to completely change the lives of so many people. Families, societies and even countries have all fallen victims to uncertainties, to a constant gripping fear, to terrorism.

Terrorism is one of the feelings at the back of one's head-, which everybody keeps on ignoring. It's not just a subliminal acknowledgement but an inherent in being of fear sewn into the fabric of one's imagination. So is terrorism just imagination? 

Imagine waking every morning just to welcome the sounds of gunfire, children screaming, mothers weeping and evil laughing. A few bombs here and a few there. How about a nice game of "dodge the mines" and "who retains the most limbs"? No?
 
 Imagine having large ugly military tanks patrolling your street and strange armed foreign men guarding every nook of your very own neighborhood. Imagine watching noisy funerals being taken out every now and then. How about a nice game of "who shouts the most vehement slogan" or "who hits the funny looking man with the gun with pebbles”? No?

A notable eastern scholar once said with utmost confidence; " I think I'm right, but I may be wrong. I think he's wrong but he may be right." This powerful statement introduces a form of logical doubt into the human psyche, commonly known as a conscious.
 
With such great motivational two liners out there, how can any one ever think of terrorism? Imagine your sister being harassed in front of you, imagine your father being insulted and checked at every check point., just because he's got a beard. How about a nice game of "bombing the guts out of every person green and foreign" or " crashing planes into tall buildings cause they block the sun." No?
 
Some things just don't need to be defined. Because they can't be reduced to an equation that would seem nice in a dictionary when read aloud. But owning to the vast lingual, cultural and ideological diversity in global cultures it is not possible to come up with something universal. So to curb terrorism in one region might be starting terrorism in the second. Thus all sides of the story should be scrutinized and a broad based agenda regarding terrorism should be formulated which incorporates all essential ethics and boundaries.

Religion is so very interesting. It's one of the major factors, which keep communities either together or as far apart as possible. To incorporate impractical and intolerant point of views within the framework of a religion is blasphemy. Such people should be incinerated at sight.

 It's very essential to at least study all the peripheries of the context under scrutiny. So attempts shouldn't be made to generalize terrorism in reference to one region, race and religion but to research all viewpoints and rationale of the afflicted and the "afflicters".  A thin dividing line between the concepts of terrorism and self-defense is what's required.

A man stands outside a Tel Aviv restaurant, spraying his customers with bullets. A tank reacts by blowing up a car full of docile children. Back comes a man to explode him and bystanders at a bus stop. In response, soldiers fire on an ambulance, killing the paramedic. Does anything ever make sense?
 
At this dangerous juncture, any hope of overcoming the psychological barriers, which demarcates the world into two extreme poles. is not exactly visible.

This makes us not scrupulously fair but scrupulously inconclusive. We finely balance horror against terror and terror against horror. The plague is on every house. We must not become partisans or we might start ranting and waving bazookas and AK47s.
 
When the Pentagon is at war, it comes up with some nifty ideas. The latest one was the Office of Strategic Influence. Its role was to coordinate public news releases and to plant false information with friends and foes alike. The military thought [of] it as a neat idea until the public found out about it. (Oh, oh).
 
Trying to influence ordinary people to war (Afghanistan) and trying to keep masses in the dark or playing cynical yet evident media games (CNN, BBC) is not a very good idea. Also aiming to stir confusion and striving to divert people's attention ([President] Bush's axis of evil bit) from the real issue won't work.
 
During the Gulf war, millions of Iraqi babies died and they still are [dying]. Why? Due to sanction embargoed by the producers of the "axis of evil" stint. Baby food and milk are one of the few things Iraqi citizens can't get.

The point is why does the common man suffer from definitions regarding terrorism inflicted upon by foreign super powers. [Is it] a 17-year-old Afghani boy’s [fault that] his father die[d] during the many imprecise "precision" bombing techniques applied not so very long ago by the USA? Absolutely [not].  He doesn't know why he has to suffer. He doesn't know what sin he has committed. But what he does possess is an unyielding thirst for revenge. In short definitions can't work. It's time to burn the heretic dictionary at the stake.

Can terrorism be stopped absent a valid definition? Can America stop aiming impractical duplicity towards the Middle East? Can the Indian government stop Hindu fanatics from incinerating Muslims? Can people in Kashmir ever get independence? Can citizens of Afghanistan lead a peaceful life under conditions set by their own culture and religion? Can children in Chechnya and Bosnia figure out why their fathers were massacred? Can Muslims in China publicly practice their faith? Can non-Muslim countries ever regain the confidence and re-allot respect to its many Muslim citizens? Can't you just shut up?

"They should decide between those who want a re-occupation of zone A (Palestinian run land) and those like me who want to launch an initiative opening the way to political avenues allowing a lasting cease-fire to be set up"---Israeli deputy defense minister Daila Rabin of the left-leaning Labor Party while advocating a reconciliatory policy towards both the Palestinians and the Palestinian authority.
 
Why can't the world realize it's utterly stupid to blame their problems and shortcomings on religious zealots and poorer countries? If conflicting religions¾ a few countries even, are at times willing to settle [conflict] without bombing, why can't everybody else [follow suit]? International politics should not be a publicity stunt.

Questions & Answers

Q1- Why, in your opinion, was the United States attacked?
 
The U.S.A has an uncanny habit of intruding and interfering in all political matters throughout the globe; obviously always keeping it's own national interests first. Often it is seen that in doing so, the other country involved usually suffers creating discord and unrest amongst its inhabitants. [For] every selfish atrocity the super power commits, a handful of "renegade terrorists are [born]. Frankly, the USA should be a little more compassionate [when] dealing with other sovereign nations, keeping in mind that [it] is quite natural for two parties not to agree on particular issues. Thus this recent attack was a cumulative onslaught fuelled by various incidents. E.g. unrest in Palestine, Kashmir etc. Issues, which the U.S.A can easily resolve; if it wants to.

Q2- Why is the first question so important to resolve and agree upon? Unless this core issue is understood no genuine initiative can be taken to curb "terrorism". If only the motives behind such attacks are understood than only can effective counter actions be taken.

Q3- What action or inaction by the United States and its allies, in the author's opinion, increased the likelihood of chemical and biological attacks? The inaction of the U.S.A. of not pressing on to enforce inspections of suspected Iraqi weapon-manufacturing complexes has according to the writer created such a danger.

Q4- Why does the author believe the United States is a popular target for terrorists? The author is so skeptic because the American authority is unwilling and unresponsive when it comes to dealing with matters offering potential dangers to its existence. Its people have become immune to
hostility and have stopped addressing issues, which arouse such feelings of bitter discontent against their nation. In addition the media doesn't air the other parties point of view thus presenting a "every one adores America" phobia to the natives. 

Q5- What motivates terrorists, in the author's opinion? According to the writer, a certain driving force, such as ransom money, the release of a few handfuls of prisoners or a political reform motivate most terrorists. Etc.

Q6- What reasons does the author give for the intense hatred of the United States by people like Osama bin Ladn?
The writer claims that the intense hatred of such figures is due to a mislead and narrow religious viewpoint and apprehensions relating to the weakening of the clergy's popular support base. He also points this finger towards wrong preaching of Islam by uneducated clergy men who preach that anyone killing an American will be offered an unconditional place in Heaven. (Summing up to be about the same thing).

Q7- How does rule by divine right preclude the reasoned debate that occurs naturally in a democracy? All natural religions of the world offer an extensive system of rights to its clergymen. Thus a decree passed by such a figure (after extensive research of the available religious records) easily supersedes a reasoned debate often imparting his followers to act upon the newly passed law blindly. It's another thing that the spiritual purity of such figures has been diluted with fanaticism and nepotism, branding such figures as shadowy and controversial who exploit the young by inflicting on them severe punishments and impractical misquoted doctrines.

Q8- What evidence does the author offer that the terrorism visited upon the United States on September 11, 2001 was based on religious rather than political fanaticism? The author claims that since no demands were made by the terrorists after and before their attack, it shows
that this act of violence was purely fuelled by religious misinterpretation. The evidence offered is that in 1998 bin Ladn issued a "fatwah" making it a holy duty for Muslims to wipe out Americans.

Q9- What is a fatwah? A fatwah is a religious doctrine or law passed by an "Alim" who is an able, educated and spiritually learned man and has undertaken years of extensive rigorous religious education and is a symbol of utmost tolerance and human perception.. (Note the prerequisites of someone who has the right to issue a fatwah) This doctrine officially endorses support and legalizes the action to be undertaken as interpreted by the Islamic jurisdiction.  It cannot be openly declared by just any lay person. i.e. Osama bin Laden. The followers of a fatwah must conduct a research on their own behalf just to make sure that the doctrine makes sense and doesn't vehemently violate other established religious principles and ethics.

Q10- why does the author think new attacks are likely and how does he/she suggests we stop them? The author thinks fresh attacks are imminent since a general atmosphere and hostile culture through misquoted religious motivation has been established by corrupt clergymen, thus generations of Osama Bin Ladn will be kept on being produced. According to him, they could be stopped by either murdering each and every perpetrator or (out of sarcasm) by converting into a revered Muslim state with an autocratic ruler. (Which is, by the way, far from being a solution.)
 
Q11- why does the author claim that declaring war is futile? What two historical examples does he/she give to back up this claim? The writer claims that such an act is futile since the enemy cannot be confined and defined geographically and America is no good in combating its foes on a limited basis. The two corresponding examples are the war on drugs and the Persian Gulf war.
 
Q12- Complete this sentence using the author's words: "A declaration of war implies . . .a conflict of limited duration in which one side eventually
 surrenders or capitulates and the other side wins.

Q13- What does the author suggest we do? He suggests America keeps its cool and embraces for an infinite duration strategy plan based on intelligence and other means of unconventional and informal warfare to combat such terrorists. 

Q14- Explain the significance of the Coventry story. This incident is based on the concept of "consorting with evil to prevent larger evil". By allowing a certain extent of damage onto one hotspot, several others were saved. Thus such a strategy is based more on pragmatism rather than established moral principles. This story signifies that sometimes rationality has to be opted over emotions to overcome a possible catastrophe.

Q15- Suppose you were a general in a combat situation. Could you "consort with evil to prevent larger evil"?  Why or why not?
I wouldn't because I'm a headstrong or lets say "heart strong" person. By relying on such an austere ideology I would have to give up a whole lot of what I believe in.  This mode of combating evil incorporates a heavy risk factor. Perhaps the damaged to be saved would have never occurred anyway. Plus, the basis of such an act is the "sacrifice of unwilling volunteers", (no matter what the intentions), so how can a wrong lead to a right?

Q16- The author says something is un-American. What is it? Do you think the author is correct? Please write out your own definition of unAmerican.  According to the writer, it is un-American for [Americans] people to vent out their frustration and anger on the majority moderate Muslims instead of the handful of religious zealots responsible.  The author is 100% correct because to do so would be the same as screaming at God for your misfortune instead of making amendments in your own lifestyle. To be un-American would be to mock and patronize people on the basis of their class, color, ethnicity and religion.

Q17- Do you agree that terrorism must be defined adequately in order to be stopped?  Ideally, yes. But owning to the vast lingual, cultural and ideological diversity in world cultures it is not possible to come up with something universal. So to curb terrorism in one region might be starting terrorism in the second. Thus all sides of the story should be scrutinized and a broad based agenda regarding terrorism should be formulated which incorporates all essential ethics and boundaries, rather then a mere definition.
 
Q18- How important do you think it is for you to research, discuss and consider the definition of terrorism? Are you willing to spend the time it takes to give your definition your very best effort? Why or why not?  It's very essential to at least study all the peripheries of the context, which would form such an equation. So attempts shouldn't be made to generalize terrorism in reference to one region, race and religion but to research all viewpoints and rationale of the afflicted and the "afflicters". 

I'm willing to put in an effort not to conjure up a definition justifying a certain point of view, but in universal understanding of conflicting issues to at
least set a thin dividing line between the concepts of terrorism and self-defense. It's about time the citizens of the world wake up from their slumber. We as humans have a huge right over world affairs. I would like to break free the society from its silence.

Q19- Were you able to define terrorism in your essay without admitting that the United States has been guilty of terrorist acts?
No! I didn't even try to defend the U.S.A.

Q20- Are you optimistic about the future? Will you pledge to do your part in pursuing mutual understanding? Why or why not?
Personally, I'm not too optimistic about the future. I feel that sadly international human rights have all become a side issue and the political arena is more of a monopoly.

I will give my 100% in trying to figure out a way and implement it to promote mutual understanding.

Back