Terrorism Revisted: Some Lessons for the Bow Wow Boys

Posted on July 8, 2005 in Terrorism

My heart goes out in sympathy to the families of the dead and the survivors of the London blasts. It’s clear why this came about and maybe who did it. England, Mighty England remains as vulnerable to attack as she did during the worst days of the IRA bombings. Can it happen here?

Whoever did this, it is clear that they subscribe to principles of terrorism. The idea differs from your normal right wing death squad in that terrorists target the general population. They often come from people under oppression. Having seen the effects of tanks, smart bombs, cruise missiles, and advanced adolescents with guns on their neighborhoods, they seek to bring the war to the neighborhoods of those who support the wars and occupations that they so detest.

There’s a difference between actions which are understandable and those which are morally correct. For example, a man might kill a nagging wife who has been sleeping around and giving him venereal diseases. That is understandable. I would, as a juror, vote for his conviction because murder is not morally right. Divorce would have been a better alternative.

That is how I feel about terrorism. I understand the frustration and the anger that leads ordinary people to put on suicide bombs, crash airplanes into buildings, and plant bombs where they will be certain to kill dozens of people and injure many more. I do not condone or feel that it is right to do these things.

The terrorist, however, does. He feels that he is out of alternatives. He cannot launch a military offensive and overrun the capital of his abusers. He cannot face his occupiers. He does not buy (nor do I) the idea that Might Makes Right. So given that the unthinkable has been thrust upon him (think of Abu Ghraib for starters), he forgets his usual morals and seeks to kill others. The terrorist will not see his victims’ blood or the bones sticking out of their limbs because he will have left the scene or he will be dead. In this way he is like the bomber pilot who drops his effulgent cargo over towns and cities and never sees the eyes of those who perish. He can have a clear conscience. The dead do not haunt him because they are removed from him.

Only two policies can deal with this attitude: the first is genocide. No people will give up a struggle against an oppressor. If one generation of resistors is destroyed, a new one will rise in ten to twenty years. The only way to end this process is to eradicate them to the point of insignificance as Euro-Americans did to the native peoples of this continent.

As far as I can see, that is neither understandable nor moral. It is sheer insanity, wicked, and cruel.

The second alternative is to reconstruct the relationship we have with peoples we have oppressed. This requires that courage that surpasses blind rage. It may call for withdrawal and other concessions. Above all else, it rejects the notion that any nation may police another and the shibboleth that Might Makes Right. Some say that this gives the terrorists what they want and that is true. We can treat the terrorists as criminals while alleviating the conditions under which their people suffer. I do not call for leniency against those who slaughter by the busload. I do call for undoing the state terror apparatus, for giving people the right to true self determination.

If you want to defeat terrorism in this generation, you must free their peoples while demanding justice for those who committed any acts of murder. This may mean that officials on our side must also undergo judgement at the Hague. All war criminals must be called to account for this to work. The terrorists and the soldier will have to sit in adjacent cells. They must be marked for their acts of murder and destruction.

The bow-wow boys will not like this, but that is the only honorable course. We must pursue what is morally right and that is to end injustice and murder. The wearing of a uniform or the participation in what might be called “a just struggle” for recruitment purposes should never, ever protect a man or a woman from the consequences of their acts.