Harem, Scare ‘Em
“One might have thought the world would stop ascribing moral equivalence between acts of terrorism and acts of punishing terrorism. It has not happened that way.” - Theodore Bikel
The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy defines terrorism as – Acts of violence committed by groups that view themselves as victimized by some notable historical wrong. Although these groups have no formal connection with governments, they usually have the financial and moral backing of sympathetic governments. Typically, they stage unexpected attacks on civilian targets, including embassies and airliners, with the aim of sowing fear and confusion.
In 2004, the United Nations Security Council report described terrorism as, “intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act.“
Just as history is written by the victorious, the direction from which you stare down the barrel of a gun speaks volumes about personal perspective.
12/7 Pearl Harbor (top) and 9/11 New York (bottom)
Why, for instance, were the attacks of 9/11/01 considered terrorist acts, but the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese is recalled as an act of war? There were a similar number of victims, but the way we look upon each historic tragedy is starkly different. Some say it is because Pearl Harbor was a military target. However, if that is a criteria, why are certain politicians and pundits calling the violent deaths at Fort Hood an act of terror?
Look at the Sons of Liberty during the early days of the American Revolution. They were probably seen as terrorists by the British – although technically, they were insurrectionists, but that is semantics. However, at the time of the rioting and arson, the American Colonies were part of the British Kingdom. The Americans – who were the victors in the war for independence – saw all acts, all raids, as the acts of freedom fighters.
I am certain that the United States has carried out numerous terrifying attacks that, in the eyes of the attacked, probably looked like terrorism. Imagine watching an entire city of over 100,000 citizens evaporated with a single bomb. That image would surely be more terrifying than almost any other act.
We’ve been at it even longer.
Eighty-one years before Hiroshima, on November 29, 1864, over 700 U.S. Cavalry soldiers, attacked a Cheyenne village at Sand Creek in the Colorado Territories. The soldiers murdered 133 Cheyenne and Arapaho men, women and children. The village was flying a U.S. flag when the attacks 
began. They quickly ran up a white flag of surrender. This flag was also ignored by the soldiers, many who had drank heavily the night before in a pre-victory celebration. That was pure terrorism from the point of view of the people who were slaughtered.
During a Congressional hearing on Sand Creek, John S. Smith, one of the witnesses said:
“I saw the bodies of those lying there cut all to pieces, worse mutilated than any I ever saw before; the women cut all to pieces … With knives; scalped; their brains knocked out; children two or three months old; all ages lying there, from sucking infants up to warriors … By whom were they mutilated? By the United States troops.“
So, you tell me, which of the following might be considered terrorists?
- The Sicarii Zealots
- The Al-Hashshashin
- Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot
- The KKK
- Italian Red Brigade
- John Brown
- The Irish Republican Army
- The Weathermen
- The Symbionese Liberation Army
- Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols
A lot of historical incidents would qualify as terrorist acts – perhaps Joshua used a sonic weapon when he brought down the walls of Jericho – but as I said when I started this train of consciousness, terrorism, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. So there, I said it.
The debate over the definition of terrorism will boil down to a Ginger or Mary Ann moment.
In reference to your list – One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
If your adversary is wearing a uniform and is under orders from another government that is an act of war. Governments commit acts of terror but call it warfare. Understanding why individuals form very complicated organizations to do us harm, is one the great questions of our time.
Why do they do it? Why do they hate so much? Religion is at the heart of it.
British generqals did call American colonial forces terrorists, because that refused to line up and fight in the open.
To me, terrorism is organized guerilla warfare to kill innocents.