| Lachlan Brown on Mon, 24 Sep 2001 22:52:11 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] Terrorism 101 Part One |
> > 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 Afri! ca, 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 pattern! s 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 > > 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? > > > what worries me most is what is not being said, > that the broad-brushing, the simplicity, in such > a complex situation, begs to bring this undefined > 'terror' into the everyday, where someone who stands > in disagreement 'upsets the way we live'. this is > the language/rhetoric being used, which is great > for mob mentalities, but diabolically poor for > democratic freedoms of thought, speech, expression. > > what happens next is beyond 'racial profiling', > that image/sight-based judgement, but 'mental > profiling', that thing that goes so well with > data-mining online and through electromagnetic > communications, where profiling goes on without > checks and balances, and poof!, all of the sudden, > everything is not only changed, but now impossible. > > that is, education, thought, approaching situations > beyond their normal bounds, that the system that is > in operation seeks a steady-state, and terrorism > may be useful for making sure the moving parts that > do not conform are instead, no longer in movement. > not only a bounded, but then a finite civility.... > > the silence, which has always been here, is now > here forevermore, until change. and, while there > is opportunity to change in this moment, the root > causes (of problems, learning from the terrorist > attacks), is not in question. only forging ahead > unabated. and beyond fear, beyond fright, nothing. > > silence, and conformance. i worry for all who do > not fit in these times. as there is government, > governance, but then there is the street, online > and offline. mobs of mass mediated 'normal' people. > > what was lost, is lost, has been lost, always lost, > is, without a total change in educational structure, > leaving all difference to rot, to suffer, to die. > > open up the doors of education to those who disagree, > who debate, and make public education about public > ideas, about public issues, about public awareness. > > enough private intellectual proprietizing of thought. > time to keyword it simple, but of the complex whole, > and make change within the Universities, where the > freedom of thought is currently held captive to the > forces that may shut up the whole of our freedoms. > > goal: free public marketplace of ideas (in the old > privatized universities), unregulated by insider- > trading and back-patting self-serving do-goodism > as the world burns, and we, one by one, will too. > > unless change can occur. opportunity in the ruins. > a chance to look/think about things differently, > take actions for freedom, through thinking, through > questioning, through learning, educating, that can > reinforce democratic freedoms, and keep things in > some precarious balance, however unbalanced, to > keep what is worth living for, alive, eternally. > > -- > .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... .. .. ... . . . . . . . > brian thomas carroll the_electromagnetic_internetwork > electromagnetic researcher matter, energy, and in-formation > human@electronetwork.org http://www.electronetwork.org/ > > # 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 > > -- ____________________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Nettime-bold mailing list Nettime-bold@nettime.org http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold