We are told this will be a "war on terrorism", and on the sates which sponsor "terrorism" and on the states which harbour "terrorists". Bertie Ahern (Prime Minster of the Irish Republic), tells us that we are either for "terrorism" or we are against it.
Doubtless some confusion will be caused by the attempt to enlist Iran in the Anti-Terrorist Alliance, given that the U.S. State Department described it as the world's "most active state-sponsor of terrorism in 2000"(1).
Likewise in regard to the inclusion of Pakistan, whose continuing support for the Muslim insurgents in India, who are usually described as "terrorists" in the Western press, will be helped by the mercenaries pay the Pakistan government has just got from the U.S..
The Mujahdeen of the anti-"Soviet" war in Afghanistan , from which Bin Laden's group grew, was described by Ronald Reagan as "the moral equivalent of our founding fathers" and by Margaret Thatcher as "freedom fighters" did they morph into "terrorists" over the years? Or is it just their choice of target has changed from red to red, white and blue.
So what is a "terrorist"?
According to Benjamin Netanyahu, "what distinguishes terrorism is the wilful and calculated choice of innocents as targets. When terrorists machine-gun a passenger waiting area or set bombs off in a crowded shopping centre, their victims are not accidents of war but the very objects of the terrorist's assault". He goes on to distinguish "terrorism" from such accidents as the R.A.F. missing a Gestapo office and hitting instead a children's hospital.
Finally he cites the report of a conference of the Jonathan Institute which reads "Terrorism is the deliberate and systematic murder, maiming, and menacing of the innocent to inspire fear for political ends."(2).
The point here being that the "terrorists" deliberately take the lives of non-combatants or "civilians", whereas when such noble governments as the Israeli or American slay thousands of innocents it's an accident. They just happen to be very accident prone.
So, why, if the definition of "terrorism" is the targeting of non-combatants, is Hezbollah's suicide bombing of the French and American military bases in the Lebanon described as "terrorism" . Why are the I.R.A. "terrorists"? When have they fulfilled the role of "terrorist" as lay out by Netanyahu? Remember "accidents" don't count.
Why were the Mujahdeen not "terrorists" when they were attacking the schools, yes schools, where schools children go to, of "Soviet" occupied Afghanistan.
Logically if we take Netanyahu's definition of "terrorism" (and we can't really say we have been inundated with others), then we can only regard the R.A.F. bombing of Germany and the U.S.A.F. bombing of Japan as acts of "terrorism". That was the attack on the World Trade Centre multiplied by a hundred thousand.
Again in Vietnam the U.S. Government deliberately targeted the civilian population of rural parts of South Vietnam for mass bombing. The intent being to remove the populations from these areas thereby depriving the guerrillas (although they were described as "terrorists" in their time) of the presence of a population which was supporting them.
In other words we have "terrorists" who are not "terrorists' and "democratic" governments who are "terrorist".
Of course what is happening is that "terrorism" is just a buzz word in the preparation for, and promotion of, violence. We are fighting "terrorism" therefore we are on the side of angels. The enemy is "terrorist" therefore they must be destroyed.
In reality the term "terrorist" is meaningless. Merely a term of abuse for those guerrilla warriors or covert State agents we do not agree with. The violence of the attacks on America are no different from the violence of America's attacks. No government can claim any 'moral high ground'.
Peter Hain, one time supporter of the A.N.C. "terrorist" group and current Minister of State at the (British) Foreign Office, writes that "The Taliban must be about the most odious regime in the world. Afghanistan is a country where ethnic and religious minorities are forced to wear badges; where people are executed, flogged and mutilated in public; and where women are systematically denied access to rights, education, employment, healthcare and humanitarian aid."(3)
Thus making them worthy targets for the Western assault.
One wonders how if this makes the Taliban worthy targets the same actions do not prevent the Northern Alliance from being worthy allies. They are cut from the same fundamentalist stone as the Taliban.
Mindful of the previous history of Afghan-American alliances I couldn't help wondering while I watched the bedraggled bearded foot soldiers of the Northern Alliance chant 'God is Great' as they fired their rockets if, in ten years time, they will be the ones accused of harbouring and encouraging "terrorism".
The Revolutionary Association of Afghan Women , an Afghan feminist organisation, make clear that the warring sides of the civil war are one side to the Afghan people:
"both sides,Éseek to outdo each other in destroying women, knowledge, culture, progress and democracy,"
"RAWA and other pro-democracy people of Afghanistan know that Taliban and their Jehadi opponents have no legitimacy because both are tied to foreign powers, and have no consideration for human and women's rights, freedom and democracy.
They cannot rise above their petty attempts to fuel sectarian, ethnic, linguistic and regional rivalries among people."
"We and the people of Afghanistan are not only opposed to the idea of one of these factions scoring a total victory over the other and becoming the ruler of Afghanistan, we are also against any government constituted through an agreement between these forces of darkness and ignorance." (4)
Of course failure on the part of Western governments to act decisively to stem the scourge of "terrorism" will only mean that these "terrorists" can attack us with impunity.
Right?
According to Ronald Jacquard, an advisor to the United Nations Security Council, author of a book on Bin Laden and head of the French state's International Terrorism Observatory, :
"The more that is done to destroy Bin Laden's organisation, the more they will try to carry out the plans they have already."
"People in the mass-market consumer societies of the United States and Europe will have to live like countries such as Israel, under permanent threat." (5)
Surely we should oppose, rather than support, our governments for helping to bring us such a situation.