Abu Aardvark has been examining an opinion poll on terrorism conducted by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. The survey was conducted in several Arab countries, including Jordan.
I have to admit I was very surprised by the poll findings among Jordanians.
One finding I found highly disturbing was that only 35% of Jordanians regard 9/11 as a terrorist attack. Only 35%!!! What do the other 65% think, that these were acts of heroism?!?! Give me a break! This is really disturbing, as we are talking more than half the population here.
Another disturbing finding was that only 48% of Jordanians thought the bombings of the Red Cross and UN headquarters in Iraq were terrorist acts? I wonder what the percentage would be if the same sample was asked about the bombing of the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad?!?! I’m now beginning to wonder how many wouldn’t consider that a terrorist act! Pathetic!
1.7 million Iraqis died under 12 years of sanctions. More than 500,000 of them were children. Let’s not forget that historical tidbit.
Question is, were sanctions an act of undeclared war? Irrespective of who is to blame.
But hey, I’m pompous and WARNING: The above may be a half-truth.
Oh, and just following out that line of reasoning, I don’t see 9/11 and Iraq both fitting the same process-based definition — that process’ objective being the killing of civilians. Iraq, while I and many others may regard it as wrong, was not a direct, unannounced attack on civilians, as I mentioned in my first comment. It may have had many nefarious elements, but the war was not designed and executed as an operation to kill civilians. I’ve never heard anyone suggest such. The attack on the world trade centers was. And worse, after that objective was achieved, it was celebrated.
Linda I do understand. I just disagree. And, you may want to read my comments again. I never suggested that you specifically justify anything. As I mentioned in my last post, those questions are meant for the discussion in general e.g. How can anyone justify such acts? They are rhetorical.
You are telling me here again that you regard both 9/11 and the war on Iraq as acts of terror. I’m telling you that to call them both terrorism is to set up a comparison of them. You are putting them on the same plane by using the same word to describe them.
You say you don’t like the way the word “terrorism” is thrown around like there is one definition. But there is one definition. It is that simple. You may not like the definition, may think it needs to be expanded, or changed but you can’t change or alter a word’s meaning just because you don’t think it incorporates everything you think it should. To allow that would be to allow the definition of terrorism to become: “any action I don’t like.”
I mentioned a few comments back that allowing the term to be stretched so it covers actions in Iraq, 9/11 and so on is actually abuse of the word. And worse, it might allow some dictator somewhere to declare actions in a revolt “terrorism” so he can now say to the world: “I’m justified, as my brothers in the US have demonstrated, in putting down these terrorists. I can now preemptively strike this group because I know they intend to terrorize my nation.” You see, to allow the definition to stretch to fit only serves to further blur the lines of what is or is not terrorism. In other words it becomes a politically controlled concept.
The UN has been wrestling with this very fact. They’ve said much the same as I here. “…one side’s terrorist is another side’s freedom fighter, and it’s difficult in reality to distinguish one type of event from another, because one has sympathy for the causes.”
So wherever one’s sympathy lies directs the definition. This is the problem and the one I’m arguing against you doing here. I think you can’t just move it wherever your heart desires. It has to have some sort of process involved to make clear distinctions. And the UN is rumored to be moving in that direction as well.
“…what will happen in the end is a very process-oriented definition, that is to say attacks on civilians of any kind – regardless of the purpose, regardless of where they are coming from – will be defined as terrorism, and that gets around the political question of trying to figure out what is terrorism based upon political objectives.” Both quotes from here but there’s much more on the debate out there.
I’m saying some things simply do not go under that definition, no matter how strong our feelings about them. Just because we think the actions are atrocious does not make them terrorism, i.e. atrocious acts do not necessarily equal terrorism. It could, but it cannot be said to definitively do so.
You seem to be saying that terrorism, the definition, works on a sliding scale, depending on the perspective and you go on to explain yours. I just do not agree with that assessment. I think words need to remain tightly defined to provide definitive reference points from their meaning. And the best way to do that is to follow a politically disconnected process-based definition.
“Hubby”
First I want to say I am really enjoying this type of dialogue and am happy your wife’s blogg creates so much debate and discussion.
But, I think you still do not understand what I mean when I talk about how the word terrorism is being thrown around like there is one definition to it. I believe terrorism has different definitions and is an act acted out by many different people. It comes in different forms. Now knowing this, if I call the invasion of Iraq an act of terror, it does not mean I am comparing it to 9/11. Remember, I believe terrorism means different things. 9/11 is an act of terror, the attack on Iraq is an act of terror, Columbine was an act of terror, the Oklahoma City bombing was an act of terror, Shatila was an act of terror; suicide bombings in Israeli coffee shops or night clubs are acts of terror, and so on. Unfortunately though, many in the westernized world will only call certain acts terrorist acts if it is acted out by an Arab or Muslim, and vise versa for those living in the Arab world.
Do I justify 9/11? No.
Do I justify the bombings of the UN or Red Cross? No.
Do I justify Shatila? No.
Do I justify Columbine? No.
I justify no act of terror, whether it is a war, a bombing, a shoot out, etc. These are all terrorist acts. I wish everyone, and not only those in the Arab world, but also Americans and everyone else will not justify ANY act of terror.
I have seen a lot of people in America protesting the war on Iraq and on Afghanistan. Demonstrations, books, even movies denouncing the act of war – even if it were for a ” justified” reason. Have I seen people or groups in the Arab world going in demonstrations denouncing such 9/11 acts ! or Bin Laden’s and the alike evil doers ?. Immediately after 9/11, I , and my family were approached by lots of Americans some of whom we did not normally even talk to, they approached us to assure us – as they believed- they are still friends of us and we did not have to worry – for what happened is done by just a few of men who do not find support of anybody and only represent their own ideaology of what they did- I am glad there were no such poll findings at that moment. I end by copying a letter (word by word-except for names -I got from the CEO of a company I worked at, but I was not working for that company during Sep 11 . How did he get my e mail? or, what reminded him of me? I don’t know !
“Jareer” :
“I wanted to check to be sure that all is as well as could be with you and
your family in light of all that has taken place in the last week.
As tough as things might appear to be, we will get through these troubled
times and be a better country as a result of having worked our way through
this together.
I just wanted you to know that we at (XYZ Company )haven’t forgotten you, and remind
you that you have many friends here that you can count on.”
Sincerely,
Mike Pierson
Linda, I just gathered from your previous comment that while you regard 9/11 as a terrorist act, you also regard Iraq, Afghanistan and the IDF as terrorists or terrorist acts. I see this as a clear, simple comparison, suggesting to me that you put 9/11 on the same playing field as the war in Iraq. The way your whole comment is structured shows comparison. You conclude that paragraph saying “I too consider those acts of terror”. My argument was that, with regard to 9/11 and Iraq, a comparison just can’t be made; they are birds of a different color, fruit of differing trees.
And while I do understand that we are discussing the Arab street here, you cast yourself into the crowd with the comment I’ve quoted so I chose to address you directly. If that is not what you are suggesting, I apologize.
But I was and remain completely onboard with you on the idea that the word “terrorism” is being used too often by too many and losing whatever value it held initially. As I said, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
In closing, I would point back to my final questions: “Why on earth do they think attacking the Red Cross and the UN were justified? Where can they find “reason” in that?” I don’t direct that at you specifically Linda, only toward the discussion at hand. I understand your line of argument as to why on the points you make. I just disagree. But I don’t see any argument available for attacks on the UN and Red Cross.
“Hubby”
In no way am i justifying or comparing the acts of 9/11 to the war in Iraq because I, as an American, was shocked by the attack. But unfortunately, many in the Arab world will compare 9/11 to Iraq, etc. Just like you would love to know what can justify the actions of 9/11, many arabs, and for that matter, many around the world want to know what can justify the attack on Iraq, etc. It is just that simple.
Well, Linda, I’m certainly not defending the war in Iraq but I think comparing it to 9/11 is a stretch. Regardless of George W’s final actions, the attack of Iraq was brought before the UN and voted on twice. The first time “something” — that gray area of political discourse that is often twisted — was granted. The second time, the US decided to go it alone. But, regardless of which way you read the lead up, Iraq was aware that an attack was imminent and they knew why it was coming.
The folks in the twin towers had not a clue. They were about as innocent to the tragedy about to befall them as those washed away by the Asian Tsunami.
As to your concern about the use of the word “terrorism” you are dead right. It has been co-opted. After all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. And you have to bring into that mix state-sponsored terrorism, such as that found in that actions of the IDF. Terrorism has become a word whipped out by leaders the world over to justify their actions, leaving a door for abuse that has been opened now on numerous occasions.
All that said, what has happened in Iraq is certainly wrong. The estimate now is that 100,000 Iraqis are dead, so called “collateral damage” — just as a side note: Imagine that in all the terrible bombings and so forth happening to the Iraqi people, realize that perhaps twice as many were killed in that terrible Tsunami in a matter of hours; amazing (that just strikes me because the number of Iraqis killed has always been the high water mark of tragedy for this millennia).
And as well-documented on this site, tremendous devastation has befallen the whole of that nation. And largely, it was based upon a lie, an excuse to get in the door and topple a dictator.
Does the end justify the means? Well, that answer is always in the eye of the beholder. And in this case, once US forces have left the country, perhaps ordinary Iraqis will sound off as to whether what occurred to them was worthwhile or not. I think they will serve as the best judge of history, instead of us outside. Certainly now, it looks bleak and things have not gone the way many in the world would have chosen. But I think the end result, historically, is what to judge.
But again, that action — that war — just cannot be put into the same category as an attack done without warning that deliberately targeted innocent people. And, if you think about it, the war in Iraq got a great deal of momentum by the actions of 9/11, being twisted as it was to generate support for a plan that may have been in place for some time. [Some reports suggest Bin Laden’s attack was actually geared to drain the US financially, pushing them into an endless war on terror that will chew up resources and people, eventually bringing the empire down. That might be revisionist history but is notable none-the-less.]
I’d also like to note that originally, polls in the Arab world found that most did not believe Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Conspiracy theories were rife. But now he has admitted such. In a strange way, that shows me that he realized most would not find his actions justifiable at the time but now, after what transpired as a result of those actions, he’s not afraid to say he did it. I would have hoped such an admission and action would be transparent to the Arab street, but he has proven savvy in his timing.
More to Natasha’s point, at least in my eyes, it is disturbing that so many in Jordan and the Arab world in general see the attacks of 9/11 as justified — that’s the only choice if you don’t see it as terrorism. You have to cast your mind back, removing the events in Iraq and think about what justified such an action? I’d love to know. Certainly the US has done many terrible things the world over, but did it actually justify this? Why do so many in the region think so? And why on earth do they think attacking the Red Cross and the UN were justified? Where can they find “reason” in that?
I am sure if a survey was conducted in America, asking Americans if they thought the invasion of Iraq was a terrorist act, you get 100% no. In these days, we truly need to define what terrorism is and who are terrorists. In the eyes of Americans, 9/11 was a terrorist act and I believe this 100% as well. But in the eyes of Americans, the invasion, attack, and occupation of Iraq would not be considered a terrorist act because it is acted out by an official group, the U.S. army. But in the eyes of many Arabs around the world, the attack on Iraq, the killing of innocent Palestinians by the IDF and the bombing of Afgahnistan is considered a terrorist act. And you know what, I too consider those acts of terror.
We throw the words terror, terrorism and terrorist around like we know what it means. Like it has one exact definition. Unfortunately, terrorism comes in many differnt forms, differnt actions, and is practiced by different people.
35% of Jordanians only believe 9/11 was terrorism ! . That leaves the rest 65% of the sample surveyed and whom they represent tyoooooooo…. ! That is less than what I expected !
In fact, about two years ago, Paula Zahn was interviewing students from the University of Jordan of their reaction when 9/11 happened, one “smart” gal said that they jupmed and celebrated what happened. They were glad ! (that was aired all across America ). What do you think I did the following day when I was asked from my folks at work of this ” educated” student ! I am a proud Jordanian ! Or, she does not represent Jordanians’ opinion ! Enough