T is for Terrorism

There's to be a film of the excellent graphic novel 'V for Vendetta', a comic book/graphic novel I much enjoyed reading when I was young (sob) after being introduced to it by a friend at school (Hello Andy!). For a better explanation than the glossy but inevitably light official film site this fan site should be required reading.  My one gripe with the fan site is that it includes an article in which 'V' is, incorrectly, described as a terrorist. What is it with the definition of terrorism that so confuses people?

I've heard terrorists described as rebels or even (hello XFM's brain dead breakfast show host) 'freedom fighters' whilst genuine rebels are described as terrorists. In our soundbite world terrorists are 'people we (the media) don't agree with' whilst rebels are 'people who we agree with/like to paint as romantic heroes' regardless of the actions of both groups.

The reality is that spotting a terrorist and labelling him/her as such should be quite simple, here are the key measurements:

1. A terrorist is one who uses violence to try to achieve political goals when a democratic method to achieve those goals is open to him/her.
2. A terrorist is one who, when using violence, deliberately targets civilians as opposed to the military/state targets that a normal person might consider to be legitimate game in a war.

Meeting either of these criteria qualifies you as a terrorist. Let's apply the criteria to a few recent conflicts to see how they stand up to real world tests shall we?

Iraq: The so-called Iraqi insurgents/rebels are terrorists as there is a democratic path open to achieve their twisted political objectives AND they deliberately target civilians,
IRA: The IRA are and were terrorists for the same reasons as above,
Hamas: Terrorists (see above) and you don't get of the hook by reclassifying the entire population of Israel as military targets.
Saudi Arabia: Wahabists setting off bombs in Saudi are terrorists as, whilst there is no democratic means of achieving their objectives, they deliberately target civilians instead of what we might describe as legitimate organs of a repressive state.
Nepal: The Maoist guerrilla's are terrorists for the same reasons as above.
The Karen: The Karen 'terrorists' are freedom fighters as they do not deliberately target civilians or have a democratic way of achieving their goal of an independent Karen state.

There's an important point to be made here about clear definitions and prejudices. I think the Wahabists in Saudi Arabia are nuts but if they were to only target only military structures/personnel I'd be forced to drop them from my list of terrorists and reclassify them as 'insurgents' or 'rebels'. As their objectives do not include the desire to live in a democratic state I would never call them 'freedom fighter's as democracy is one of the prerequisites of freedom, though not the only one.

Governments can be terrorist organisations as well, witness the implementation of 'terror' policies (the deliberate killing of civilians to achieve a political end) by the Sudanese government in the case of Darfur or the Government of Burma/Myanmar in the case of the Karen.

Try it yourself, pick a conflict and measure it against the 2 rules. It's simple, if only the lords of the media would apply these rules to news reporting, instead of their own twisted version:

1. If your supposed political aims resonate with my view of the world, you are a rebel or freedom fighter no matter what appalling atrocities you commit or how your real world actions stack up against your supposed high standards. I'll judge you not by your actions but by your press releases.
2. If sustaining rule 1 becomes difficult in the face of documentary evidence that contradicts my previous view, then I'll muddy the waters by interchanging the terms terrorist/rebel/freedom fighter and insurgent until everyone believes that they are all the same and that "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter" - one of the most wrongheaded and demented lines ever uttered.

As for the film, I'll watch it because I have impressively low standards when it comes to film choices (not low enough for Star Wars prequels but low enough for Charlies Angel's 2) but I'm sure it'll be a gross simplification of a complex story. Not just because that is how the producers choose to play it but also because of the limits of the film medium.

The graphic novel on which it is based is still available, so go and buy it.

Comments

[David Vance]

Excellent analysis and one that blows away the hoary liberal/media myth that "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[richard]

I bet you think the elections in Iraq were free, fair and democratic.
Tell me again, precisely what is America doing in Iraq?

[John T. Kennedy]

Your first standard implies that democracy is a non-violent method of achieving goals but this is patently false. Democratic government can't exist without the constant threat of violence against civilians - which makes democracy institutionalized terrorism by your second standard.

[John T. Kennedy]

I should also point out that V deliberately targets the civilian non-combatant Evey Hammond with violence - he tortures her for hours, possibly days. That that qualifies him as a terrorist by your second standard.

[WillS]

John: You can't just throw in a statement like "Democratic government can't exist without the constant threat of violence against civilians" and not provide further argument or evidence. Without doing so your statement makes as much sense as me saying "The moon can't stay in orbit without the collective wishes of millions of children keeping it there". Please provide evidence and arguments or point towards posts on your own blog.

And torturing a person for days on end does not make you a terrorist, just very, very sick.

[WillS]

richard: Well, yes I do. And I'm not alone in that. The UN agreed, despite misgivings about campaign finance laws (or rather the lack of them) and information distribution on the 7,000 candidates. The campaign finance situation should be addressed by the Iraqi parliament (not this one but the one elected in December this year under the new constitution) and the information issue addressed as the parties consolidate (the multiplicity of candidates is perhaps understandable in the first election in a country denied a democratic opportunity to express itself for 50 years).

And as for "Tell me again, precisely what is America doing in Iraq?" - I don't recall tellig you the first time. PErhaps you could refresh my memory?

[John T. Kennedy]

Willis,

You can't just throw in a statement like "Democratic government can't exist without the constant threat of violence against civilians" and not provide further argument or evidence.

Well how is a democratic government to be funded without the threat of violence against civilians? Remove that threat and your government will quickly dissolve.

"And torturing a person for days on end does not make you a terrorist, just very, very sick."

It makes V a terrorist by the second standard offered above:

2. A terrorist is one who, when using violence, deliberately targets civilians as opposed to the military/state targets that a normal person might consider to be legitimate game in a war.

V deliberately targeted a civilian with violence for political ends. Evey Hammond was not a legitimate target.

[Julius Blumfeld]

"democracy is one of the prerequisites of freedom,"

Au contraire. History and political economy both tell us that democracy is accompanied by vast increases in government power to the great detriment of freedom.