The sudden assertion of human criteria within a dehumanising framework of political manipulation can be like a flash of lightning illuminating a dark landscape
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationThe World
Our writers |
 |
Why keep mixing terminology?
I am Spanish, and my family is from the Basque Country, roots I am more than proud of. I am 26 years old and have never lived without the threat of terrorism, even though our Constitution was signed the year after I was born. Since long before, but stronger still after our country chose to be organized in a very succesful autonomic model of government giving a lot of power to the different spanish provinces, we have been under constant attack by a group of TERRORISTS called ETA. They are not a separatist group, or a guerrilla, or as this article refers to them "militant group", they are simply TERRORISTS, who use murder, extortion and drug-dealing to finance themselves, and who, despite all this, have POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES they can elect, because of our beautiful democracy.
Spanish people are sick and tired of reading foreign press refer to these murderers with romantic-like epithets instead of TERRORISTS. The article mentions " GAL death-squads that toured the Basque country in the 1980s to devastating effect". They did, and they were death squads, it was state terrorism, and most of these people are in jail. So why not mention all the deaths and devastation ETA has caused Spain in general and the Basque Country in particular these last 30 years?
How would americans feel if Spanish press referred to Al Quaeda and bin Laden as a "religious group" or "liberation fighters"? They are terrorists, no matter their motives or beliefs. Same as ETA. ETA even has realistic, democratic means to achieve their original goals, separatism from Spain. And you know what? They have 10% of the Basque vote, at the most. Is that enough to consider these people representatives of a repressed nation? I donŽt think so.
Submitted on Fri, 2004-03-19 16:36
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
> Spanish people are sick and tired of reading foreign
> press refer to these murderers with romantic-like
> epithets instead of TERRORISTS.
I see where you are coming from - but would also say that it does help to know where your terrorists' ideologies and not assume they are 'all the same' - if you really wish to solve the problem. Sure ETA are terrorists - but they are also seperatists, whereas 'Al-Qaeda' has totally different motivation. We also suffered from three sets of terrorism in the last thirty years in the UK - well, for the most part it was the people of Northern Ireland who were and are still suffering most - 'republican' terrorists, 'loyalist' terrorists and 'state' terrorists. All of them created terror and suffering - but in the end what stopped the majority of terrorism was behind-the-scenes attempts to negotiate (often mediated from the outside). It still is not over yet, so I don't want to be too hasty, but in a democracy it seems that terrorism will eventually have to give in to the peaceful majority by being given acceptable concesssions - that might sound unnacceptable and even repugnant whilst bombs are still exploding - but I am just saying what seems to have happened so far in NI. AS for Al-Qaeda - well, I am not sure that terrorists who do not even spring from within a society based on democracy or consent can be dealt with in the same way - I am not sure how they can be dealt with though...
So yes, they are all terrorists, but we need more than that to stop any of them.
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
I agree with the writer that it is not correct to use the terms terrorist and separatist interchangeably. But I disagree that, in the case of ETA, the term terrorist should, as a matter of course, be used in PLACE of separatist.
Separatism is an aim, an objective; terrorism is a means.
So ETA is an organisation whose stated aim is separatism (or independence from Spain). It uses terrorism as one of its means of pursuing that aim.
Al-Qaeda's aims are less clear cut. (This is so for a number of reasons, not least because it is a shadowy 'network' organisation, rather than a hierarchical structure.) But SOME of its aims, announced at SOME times, but SOME of its affiliates include: the withdrawal of western forces from the holy lands, a state for the palestinians, and so forth. (This is hard to say for sure, because there are so many conflicting versions of Qaeda ideology: SOME of its affiliates have stated a desire to destroy the USA; to reclaim andalucia; to return to a 'purer' form of Islam; etc.
Al Quaeda's MEANS are terrorism.
So when the media (and others) refer to ETA as a separatist organisation, they do not necessarily deny that it is also a terrorist organisation. They are simply referring to its aims and not its means.
Why does the media refer to ETA by its aims and Qaeda by its means? One reason, surely, is media bias, bordering on racism.
But probably just as important is that, while ETA's its aims are relatively clear (making separatist an apt description), Quaeda's aims are much LESS clear. Thus reporters grab hold of its most salient feature -- its means (ie terrorism).
I agree with the writer that this COULD give some readers the impression that ETA's means were somehow legitimate, while quaeda's were not.
But, unlike the writer, I certainly would not object to qaeda being referred to as a political islamist group -- or some other designation referring to its aims. I do not see the need to use the term terrorist at all times -- that is, to refer to any group's means of attaining its aims.
--RJ
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
I have empathy for your position. The problem is there is a tendency among many to abstract out truth. One could say that the Scottish Nationalist Party has been separatist or Plaid Cymru. Hezbollah, Hamas, and IRA claim separation between political and military in their organizations. The truth though is in deed not claim. We will see about the IRA in the future. ETA, Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Quaeda are terrorists organizations. To have lived in an environment tainted by the phenomenon of terror is to understand its essence. It is also common now, as with ETA that many terrorist groups are becoming bureacratic. The bureaucracies however simulate military not political bureaucracies.
The world honors Ghandi now, but forgets Bose. Bose was the terrorist. There was an interview published by Open Democracy of a 'moderate' member of Hamas. His responses were hateful, his ethos inherant to what make Hamas tick --- pun intended -- and yet the interviewer seemed oddly sympathetic to the man. I found the tenor of the interviewer appalling. One can have a soft spot for a cause, but if this extends to murderers, then questions must be raised. Open Democracy did not raise the questions. The author mourned the eventual death of the man interviewed. There is a Palestinian group in London that refers readers to Open Democracy.
Oso
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
This is the article ursa9 is talking about:
The nail in the wood: an interview with Ismail Abu Shanab
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-97-1469.jsp
The man interviewed was Hamas’s ceasefire negotiator, one of the only members of the group who advocated engagement in the parliamentary process, and who was openly prepared to entertain the two-state solution. I don't think he was presented as any sort of hero or innocent. We published the interview the day after he died (as far as I recall). The sad part was that his death underlined that a peaceful democratic solution would not happen any time soon. That was the point of the article, in any case. Not my personal view.
Paul Hilder conducted the interview when he was working a book called Peace Fire: Fragments from the Israel-Palestine Story (Free Association Books), a collection of personal experiences, diaries and analyses from all sides of Israeli and Palestinian society telling the story of the recent conflict from 2000 to the present day.
Just a little background. I think its a valid critique. And in any case a complex argument. Wasn't it Thatcher who said the media provides oxygen to terrorists? On the other hand, how do you foster understanding and dialogue about an issue if you ignore it? Was Al-Jazeera wrong to broadcast the bin Laden tape, etc? There's another thread for you!
I assure you, we don't support terrorism at openDemocracy - regardless of who does the killing - or who does or doesn't links to us.
Solana Larsen
- forum moderator
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
fdelamota,
As an American, I agree with your take on the excesses and inherent bias of our and, more widely, Western media. I also empathize with you and your Basque countrymen who have suffered under ETA terrorism -- for that is what it is, plain and simple. And I am apalled (but hardly surprised) at the condescending and perverse response of Curious. It takes intelligence to be able to analyze the subject in the comprehensive and fairly eloquent way Curious did -- and a stunning lack of empathy, morality and basic common sense to lecture you, who has lived under the threat of ETA violence for all of your 26 years, on how you should be defining these terrorists, how you and your neighbors should be seeking ways to UNDERSTAND them and how you need to have a clearer comprehension of the differences between “terrorists” and “separatisits.”
Curious would have you take care in your labeling of ETA bombers as simply terrorists, because their motive is somehow noble.
“But, unlike the writer, I certainly would not object to qaeda being referred to as a political islamist group -- or some other designation referring to its aims. I do not see the need to use the term terrorist at all times -- that is, to refer to any group's means of attaining its aims.” -- Curious
Perhaps al Queda would be interested in giving Curious a salary -- he makes an excellent spokesman. Nothing pleases al Queda and similar terrorist groups more, I’m sure, than when well-meaning but apparently simpleminded souls legitimize their crimes by seeking to ascribe some higher purpose to them. So you do not see the need to use the term “terrorist” to describe al Queda -- or at least, not all the time -- huh, Curious? How comforting for these murderers -- and how callous and unsympathetic for the thousands of innocents who have died at their hands.
This cannot be more clear -- blowing up a commuter train full of unsuspecting and innocent men, women and children, whatever your motivation, makes you a murderer. Not a freedom fighter, or a separatist, or any other noble label. Simply and inarguably, a murderer. Any attempt to ascribe higher motivations to such acts, or treat these killers as anything other than killers, is amoral sophistry. Anyone who provides such aid and comfort to terrorists, the common enemy of civilized society, should be ashamed.
Message was edited by: henry_hart_1
Message was edited by: henry_hart_1
Message was edited by: henry_hart_1
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
Henry, I do wish you would engage your brain before opening your mouth - you sound much more measured and sensible then this on occasions. Specifically...
> I also empathize with you and your
> Basque countrymen who have suffered under ETA
> terrorism -- for that is what it is, plain and
> simple.
Nobody here is denying that ETA are terrorists. Nobody is offering them support. I should hope that we are all equally appalled by their actions.
> And I am apalled (but hardly surprised) at
> the condescending and perverse responses of David
> Wood and Curious.
Ah - so your empathy is to be taken as entirely guileless, but mine is condescension. I am interested to know how you make this distinction. I am also interested to know why you call an attempt to understand 'perverse'.
> It takes intelligence to be able
> to analyze the subject in the comprehensive and
> fairly eloquent way they did
I agree that the original writer demonstrated eloquence. You don't have to patronise him or her yourself to make your point.
> and a stunning lack
> of empathy, morality and basic common sense to
> lecture you, who has lived under the threat of ETA
> violence for all of your 26 years, on how you should
> be defining these terrorists, how you and your
> neighbors should be seeking ways to UNDERSTAND them
> and how you need to have a clearer comprehension of
> the differences between “terrorists” and
> “separatisits.”
I thought what I was doing was offering one perspective from another country which has suffered terrorism and to a limited and as yet unfinished degree has started to control and deal with it. The point about the UK experience is that in public, our political leaders were very much like you, Henry - 'no surrender', 'no negotiation', 'no understanding' - but behind the scenes they were involved in multiple kinds of hidden action - not just negotiation with the various parties, but also intelligence work, subversion, even at some times sponsoring one terrorist group against another. Now, I am not advocating any of these methods in particular - what I am saying is that in order to overcome terrorist methods in this case, there had to be a detailed understanding of ideology and motivation, however repugnant those ideologies are and however disgusting the motivations. Understanding does not equal support - how do you think your own intelligence services operate?
> Perhaps David missed this part of your post in his
> haste to get started telling you how wrong you are
I was not telling fdelamota he or she was wrong, I was trying to engage in an intelligent and adult discussion. I hope he or she will apreciate this. That is what this site is for.
> How would David Wood describe equal access to
> government and the right to vote? Sounds like
> “acceptable concessions” to me.
The terrorists in NI had the same rights. But they wanted something other than that. Of course reasonable rights in a democracy sound reasonable to reasonable people (as I hope we all are). But the question is: how do you deal with people who want something that is not on offer and are prepared to use unreasonabel means to acheive that goal?
> Spain,
> as does any other country, has the right to treat
> them as the criminals they so clearly are.
Of course it does - but all I am saying is that the expereince of NI seems to be indicating that there must be movement beyond this stance in order to get beyond more that a hostile stalemate that perpetuates violence over generations. Of course, NI is only one example. I hope others can offer perspectives on domestic terrorism and how it has or hasn't been transcended or beaten.
> Curious, and to a seemingly lesser extent David Wood,
> would have you take care in your labeling of ETA
> bombers as simply terrorists, because their motive is
> somehow noble.
I do not know how in the world you divine any support for ETA or any other terrorists of any statement I have made that suggests that are in any way worthy of praise or respect from my comments. I would ask you to retract any statement that suggests that I do. I do not.
> Any attempt to ascribe higher motivations
> to such acts, or treat these killers as anything
> other than killers, is amoral sophistry.
So why do the police spend a lot of time trying to understand the motivations of killers, and why do intelligence services do the same for terrorists organisations? Motivations are not elevated to a higher plane because you determine what they are. I am sorry but it is simply unrealistic to suggest that you can win any campaign against a terrorist organisation without understanding whence they draw their support, what they hope to achieve and why they do what they do.
> Anyone who
> provides such aid and comfort to terrorists, the
> common enemy of civilized society, should be
> ashamed.
Indeed, anyone who provides aid and comfort to terrorists should be ashamed, in fact they should be prosectuted to the same extent as terrorists themselves. However you are simply imposing your own reactive politics on others to claim that any other approach to terrorism than your own is 'amoral' or worthy of shame. I would ask you not to continue to claim that anyone who disagrees with you on this supports terrorism. We all oppose terrorists, we just have differing understandings and strategies as to how terrorists might be overcome.
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
David Wood --
Sorry for the delay in responding. Been on much-needed vacation for a week, and so, upon returning, was able to look at your original post, my response and your riposte with rested and somewhat repentant eyes.
As your requested, I withdraw my comments implying that you somehow support or empathize with terrorists. As a further mea culpa, I have edited my initial post. My comments to curious I leave intact.
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
ursa
Just out of curiosity, as an historian, how do you feel about the writings of the revisionist branch of Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris or Avi Schlaim etc.?
I keep asking myself the question, when reading some postings adressing the middle east conflict- what on earth kind of academic work have they been reading? I'll restrain from any labeling of arguments, and stick to a simple question.
The Norwegian public is going through a rather painful(for some) process of revaluating it's own relationship with Israel, and the direction of official standings are leaning more and more towards sceptisicm of current Israeli policies( As most European countries, as we all know). In large part, this occurs in combination with the unraveling of new historical research, and not anti- semitic notions, which seems stable, though present,in their obscurity.
I would really like know- what writers are dominant in US history courses on the Middle- East?
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
baardbal,
These are interesting questions. Unfortunately this is not my field. However I will ask around. I have some points of view, but I would prefer to give a more informed response. Neocon might have some insights here,even into the American scene. It is my concern that the broaching of specific policy decisions opens the door to poor scholarship about more general issues. Criticizing
the momentary policies of a government should only be one small aspect of wider opinions. I do know that the American academy is, if anything harsh on Israel vis-a-vis the Palestinian cause and that in certain courses this has been taken to another level; sometimes even objective anti-semitism like the unquestioned invocation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The personal background of the Professor is not necessarily the determinant factor here. There will be similarities, but of course Norwegians would have concerns more attuned to the Norwegian or Scandanavian mentality.
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
What makes openDemocracy tick? Does openDemocracy have a hidden agenda? Here is my modest contribution to this forum mentioned in my Editor’s Note at http://www.opendemocracy.net/themes/article-3-1827.jsp.
First we have a financial agenda: we want our readers to become subscribers so that we can stand on our own feet and become independent – including being independent of the foundations and backers who have helped bring us into the world.
Second, we have an open agenda. It is in our name: it’s openDemocracy. it means that we’re for democracy and against, therefore, terrorism, fundamentalism and other agendas which presume that they know best and want to “win” their struggle by imposing their views and interests on the rest of the world.
What do I mean by democracy? Isn’t this something I want to impose on the rest of the world? I think not. For me, humankind has just embarked upon the process of creating, discovering, and inventing democratic societies. Representative democracy, which has taken 200 years to shape, and which gives countries which enjoy it the ability to change their governments peacefully, is a tremendous achievement. But it is also just a starting-point.
Another starting-point, this time for openDemocracy, is that every human being on earth is born an equal of every other. This belief inspires us to provide space for and to attract many more voices with new perspectives especially from the developing world, whose views and interests are not fairly represented in the global balance of power.
We are “just” a website. But in so far as we can, we aim to become a recognised counterweight to the vested interests of the corporate media. We seek content – including forums! – that provide truth, understanding, diversity and imagination lightened by wit and enjoyment. Journalistically we want to cover big issues of the contemporary world, attracting an international readership who want to make up their own minds for themselves.
This last point is one of those phrases which many say and few do anything about. If democracy is to mean that people can have effective say in the government of their lives then these “democratic people” need to be able to think and make judgments. This means they need to be able to assess and think about their societies as a whole. Such self-government requires a media that encourages and supports an open-minded politics.
Re: Why keep mixing terminology?
some people grind axes. others grind grains so they can eat bread . what do you do?
It seems that many people here have axes to grind. that's a shame. but who am i to say what to do with your spare time? Ivory towers with automated axe grinders sure make us feel secure and grand!
Referring to the original article, bumbling about the transatlantic relationship misses the mark. After all a relationship fuelled by common grief doesn't seem to provide stable foundations. Rather, today calls for strong global relations. Not one axis against the other: a perpendicular bisection of reason. this is about the treatment of a sick world which, indeed, calls for surgery from time to time, but that is not my point here...
It is about a multitude of actors from a multitude of places who, each through their own history of socio-politico-economic (culturo-ideological?) evolution is encased within (or bound to) a national or some other symbolic entity, each seeking to fulfil their own (is it really?) perception of personal upliftment. There are those with useful and constructive understandings of the large-scale dynamics of the human struggle (however that might be framed) and those with rather disfunctional (not matching the needs of a prosperous future) understanding. Of course, the weakest (least tenable for the future) views perpetuate themseleves and are perpetuated by each other. They also tend to be the least understanding.
Strengthening one's own position through strengthening the weakest appears to be a sensible and feasible solution. This means assisting the poor and marginal in their struggles. It means putting in places something for them that makes it all worthwhile: when one can. It also means stopping the one-sided views that even the most sophisticated writers seem to turn to. Nothing is one-sided. Not even a singularity, which after all is bent in on itself. Buddha taught this so long ago by expounding the virtues of the middle path. It makes sense no? Who wants to go sideways anyway when there are edges to fall off and there's so much more in front? so that calls for understanding and an end to arbitrary condemnation. By the way, illumination of word-meanings shouldn't be criticised. Words are symbols and therfore shape individually constructed realities through complex systems of contextual association. Clarity leads to understanding.
Understanding also means recognising the fallibility of the human mind; of thinking about processes of learning, the meaning of social engineering (in its economic and cultural sense) and the assimilation of thoughts and ideas; their eventual construction into ideologies in the minds of individuals that leads to their ultimate realisation through decision-making and action, often upon flawed interpretations that break down under scrutiny. It also means placing accountability on those who make decisions and measuring consequences in qualitative or abstract terms, for example on the collective psychology of a nation or smaller social group affected by the decisions. Ideologies become engrained over time, perception flutters between fictional beliefs and reality, particularly within a confined reality where boundaries are pre-determined, not discovered, where the word of another shapes reality instead of the process of exploration. Pointing the blame serves little purpose. It is far better to consider one's own flaws and to assist others in discovering theirs than pointing the finger. This is not easy. This is a challenge. It requires courage that most do not have the energy or patience to undertake... yet.
I just felt like pointing all that out.
Disclaimer: thid doesn't mean going soft on terrorism. just thought i had to say that too. Means define ends. Just look at the bloody history of the world and consider the insanity that defines the present. Thank you.
Message was edited by: andre_3
Post new comment |
|
Elections |
Posts: 1
Joined: 2003-12-09