CAN TERRORISM EVER BE JUSTIFIED ???

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington 's War on Terror. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the formers demands be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response. From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives lives that had little to do with the terrorist's main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a moral global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances. Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more satanic than the policy makers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries. Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. Statesponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, show's the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi's sanctioning of civilian airplane bombings over Lockerbie , Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a

madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable. Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party's problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leadership such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end. But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil's advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is acceptable because it is a natural consequence of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case. Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First world has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world 's action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War era weapons are the mainstay of Al Qaeda's and Abu Sayaff's arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda's cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheedin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world's most powerful countries. In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world's impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists' own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the unfairness and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations

of Chechnya . And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people's bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda's operatives, Abu Sayaff's guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an accepted outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor. Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting IsraeliPalestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia's Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir's speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not justification enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA 's refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is an plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take

note of CNN's coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever's in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.

In war, no one wins. Discuss.

Though it has been years since a major regional conflict has threatened the fragile balance of peace that exists today, the horrors of war and the memories and lessons that were the bitter fruits of the acts of monstrosity must not be forgotten. It is true that with the collapse of the former Soviet Union and the subsequent end to the Cold War that had more than once threatened to throw the world back into chaos, the world has become more peaceful and the foundations for a lasting peace have been set in stone. However, the frequent occurrence of minor regional hostilities such as in Bosnia and Kuwait serve as constant reminders that the vengeful ghost of war still poses a threat to our peaceful survival, and affirms the fact that in a war, that are no winners only losers. The act of war, as many perceive, is the act of hostility between two factions that develops with explosive force into a full scale conflict, with both sides pouring their entire resources into attaining victory by crushing the enemy in a military campaign. The violent and militaristic nature of war itself ensures that the spilling of blood and loss to human life is inevitable. The death count for a war that embroils the entire globe may run into the millions as shown in World War Two, where more than twenty million out of a population of just over a hundred million died in Russia. The method of presentation of those figures lulls us into the deadly tendency to write off these figures as being merely statistics, but it must not be forgotten by mankind that each and every single one of the statistics represents a precious human life, forcibly taken away by the simple declaration of war. In any war, there will be two opposing sides, or maybe more, but what remains as solid as stone is the fact that lives from all sides are lost in the battle, taken by the grim reaper who turns a blind eye to any allegiance one may have, regardless of victory or defeat. In the end, it is humanity as a whole which loses. With the development of a civilians war since the last World War, the loss of innocent lives has broken out of the traditional confinement among soldiers on the battlefield. Unsuspecting citizens are killed in their sleep, or on the streets, by an assortment of advanced weaponry that includes planes, rockets and bombs. For now, there is nowhere that is safe from the onslaught of the enemy. Science has become an even uglier monster with the invention of weapons of mass destruction, intended to wipe out entire populations with just a touch of a button. This act of extreme brutality only serves to deepen the sins of mankind for the acts of cruelty inflicted on their fellow human beings for just being on the wrong side. There are no benefits to this step backwards to the barbarianism that characterised early civilisation, and the only loser is society. The destructive aims of war, of wiping out the enemy to ensure success, ultimately must result in a general loss of personal property, whether in the simple destruction of homes and lands by advancing troops, or the forceful seizure of property by ones own authority to further the cause of the war. This leaves many unfortunate civilians homeless and destitute, desperate in their continuous struggle for survival against the plague of starvation and disease that afflicts everyone in its path. Devastation of the land occurs with almost periodic regularity in the event of war, laying to waste in hours or just minutes what might have taken years of hard toiling and work to erect. The plague of war leaves in its wake a bleak and unproductive wasteland, useful to no one. The purpose of seizing this piece of wasteland that is often the main aim in wars over territorial occupation, cannot be comprehended by common logic. While one

party might have gained some benefits out of it before, it serves no purpose to anyone anymore. It is as we say, a lose-lose situation. While some may attempt to present their argument that the victor in a war is a winner by the fact of increased territories or the acknowledgement of defeat by the other party, this remains a myopic view. What the winner of the war has really gained, is in fact a stagnation of otherwise productive trade, a termination of thousands of innocent human lives and an irreversible outflow of resources that had been made use of to continue the war. War, economically speaking, is non-productive as it channels resources into products that are ultimately destroyed, whether during the war, or after the war. No single country stands to gain much from participating in a long-drawn conflict with other nations. Some critics of the stand that war produces no winners, only losers, may claim that wars are fought for heroic and noble causes by providing examples of wars fought for unification of territory as in China, or against barbarians such as in the case of the Crusades. However, they have forgotten that these are merely excuses for more sinister and dark agendas, such as genocide and for the lust of power. The ugly head of genocide and racism has again been raised in recent years, with the occurrence of ethnic-cleansing in Bosnia between the Serbs and the Muslim Croats. Further away from home, in Africa, was the mass murder of thousands of Tutsis in the civil war in Rwanda that has shocked the international community in its cruelty and inhumanity. After thousands of years of civilisation, the human kind has yet and again failed in its quest for equality and a civilised society. War makes every single one of us losers, sharing in the humiliation of defeat. The act of war arouses hatred and breaks human bonds, takes innocent lives and destroys our homes, taking away all that we have cherished in replacement of a darker and bleaker world, making everyone an equal in their failure to stop a war.

All war is nothing more than an organized crime. Do you agree?

Organized crime is not relative. It is universally condemned, because most rightthinking individuals realize that such activity is detrimental to the human race as a whole. War on the other hand refuses to be evaluated objectively, because it is an act of violence sanctioned by the state, an amorphous entity claiming to represent the views, beliefs and morality of its citizenry and that is why war is far more insidious than organized crime. Crime is a word that brings to mind acts of selfishness, antisocial acts that disrupt the functioning of society, that cause hurt or suffering. It is always evaluated while bearing in mind fairness, and thus what is unfair is often a crime. Stealing relegates property that rightfully belongs to its owner to someone else. Murder deprives an individual of the right to live. It is this innate moral compass that helps the majority of men to be able to judge what is crime and what is not, and therefore crime appears to us as a cut-and-dried subject, easily defined and identified. What about war? Indeed, there are still many men in this modern world who in their great wisdom proclaim that war is an amoral tool which can be used for good, or for the greatest evil. Genghis Khan, the Great Mongol Conqueror (if conquering through bloodshed accrues greatness) once said, Let him who desires peace, prepare for war. His enemies all agreed with him on this point, yet perished underneath the unshod hooves of stocky Mongol ponies. Our leaders today tell us that war must be an option made available to the nation-state, lest we should lose our peace. Some primal instinct that makes us uneasy with war must still flow through our veins, for men to have to keep thinking of new, pallid platitudes and aphorisms to justify war. Could it be that this primal instinct is related to the innate moral compass that helps us identify what is criminal? Let us look at the similarities between crime and war. The former involves taking property belonging to someone else; the latter involves taking territory belonging to someone else because you believe it rightfully belongs to you. Crime sometimes involves killing; war requires you to kill, to defend your nation. Once again we see the constant need to justify war. It is, in the eyes of its proponents, a very human attempt to deliver justice on a political scale. The concept of a just war is not new. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo in the 5th century in the year of Our Lord, wrote that a state should not be the aggressor, should not kill women and children and should strive to end the war as quickly as possible. This hardly seems criminal, since a just war strives to be fair. The act of war cannot be organised crime because of this aspiration; it is not even similar to crime because it claims to be sanctioned by a great body of people, a society. It is for these reasons that war is infinitely more horrified, more absurd and more insidious than organized crime. Genghis Khan and St. Augustine lived in simpler times, when wars were declared by caliphs, kings and emperors. We now perceive our modern wars to be more just because they are declared not with the fasces [?], but with the righteous, raised fist of democracy. One sad Americanism dating from the Cold War is Everyone loves a good war. The nature of domestic politics in America enshrines the importance of the individual will as expressed through the ballot box, in theory. The American public voted for Nixon because he claimed that he would end American involvement in Vietnam. He did withdraw US troops from the mire of the Vietnamese conflict, but not before the Watergate political scandal at home and bombing North Vietnamese cities with more ordnance than had ever been used in a single bombing campaign,

eclipsing even the devastation the Allies wrought in Berlin during the Second World War. It is a great pity that the ideals of democracy are seldom fulfilled, until the last days of a presidents term. But what if democracy could work? Would war still be a crime if it were declared through the most holy tabernacle that is the ballot box? Depending on the constitution, a two-thirds majority may be needed for a referendum, or perhaps a simple majority. Therefore the ideal nation-state could possibly declare a just war, should five million individuals vote against the war, and five million and one vote in favor of it. It is of course patently absurd, yet warmongers continue to use democracy as a means of justification. War is insidious because it pretends to be just, disguises itself as an amoral political tool, and convinces us that ends justify means, no matter the human cost. In our enlightened age we have sought to control it, creating treaties to ban landmines and chemical weapons, and an International Court of Justice to try war criminals. Organized crime on the other hand makes no pretences. War refuses to be controlled, refuses to take on any of the mantles we bestow upon it, be they Infinite Justice, Enduring Freedom, or the shallowest yet, Pre-emptive Retaliation in the Name of Self-Defence. America knows that war is a tool difficult to control, and that is why it refuses to be beholden to the War Crimes Tribunal of the International Court of Justice. A minor Member of Parliament in Nepal once proudly proclaimed, during a budget debate, with much irrelevance, that he would be proud to send his son to die for Nepal in the name of safeguarding our peace and freedom. A clear-minded Nepal wrote in the newspapers about how we would all have fewer wars if we were not so eager to participate in them. To praise such acts of violence in the name of anything at all would certainly be a worse crime than any other.