Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
The true language of counter-terrorism
What should we call terrorists, some of whom claim to be motivated by their religion? Can one be an Islamic terrorist? What about a Christian terrorist? Does what we call terrorists matter?
What we call terrorists may not matter very much, but a restriction on what we can call them is of enormous importance. In order to get to the truth of any issue, people have to be free to talk about it without fear of repercussion. Unfortunately, one of the issues around which many problems revolve - religion - is also a topic that is particularly hard to discuss freely. In our day-to-day life, we may avoid the topic with only minimal inconvenience. When it comes to global terrorism, restricting what we say about religion can lead to devastating results.
Next month I will start the new semester by teaching a course called "Terrorism and the Law." On the very first day, I will explain to the students that we will be talking about religion even though we are at a state law school. Islam, or at least the way some people interpret Islam, is an important issue when it comes to modern terrorism. I will, of course, explain that not all Muslims agree with the terrorist tactics - or even their long term aims - and not all terrorists are Muslim, but we can't really study modern terrorism without developing an understanding of the motivations. Unfortunately, religion is a significant motivation underlying much modern terrorism.
Four or five years ago I traveled with a group to Israel. Instead of studying the holy sites, however, the focus of our trip was on counter-terrorism. Most members of my group were college educators who taught courses on terrorism. One of them had authored a major textbook. He told me that his publisher forbid him from any discussion of religion in the book. He said that was common. Publishers were afraid that books would not be used if they ventured into that area. He also said that most experts in the field lacked the knowledge to write about religion anyway.
By keeping religion out of these textbooks and the related courses we were knowingly providing an insufficient education to our next generation of counter-terror experts. The author said that when the book came out in its next edition (which was going to be its third), he planned to demand inclusion of religious issues. He felt that by then the book would be well enough established that he would be able to make that demand. Still, the very idea that we had been intentionally excluding important issues when discussing this topic was shocking.
Of course, a private entity might fear a violent reaction such as the riots that followed the publication of those Danish political cartoons. It is not, however, only private publishing interests that feel unable to talk about religion. The United States government also has a very hard time doing it. After all, as an inclusive society, we can't really argue that a Christian or Judeo-Christian outlook is better than even "hard-line" Islam, can we?
The government's inability to talk about religion reached almost comical proportions in 2003, when the Department of State launched a "cultural magazine" for young men and women in Arab-speaking countries. A special coordinator for public diplomacy in the State Department explained: "This is a long-term way to build a relationship with people who will be the future leaders of the Arab world.... This is, in a very subtle way, a vehicle for American values."
"Hi" magazine focused on things like entertainment, technology, and sports. Among the early articles that I remember was one about sand-surfing and another about protecting against over-exposure to the sun. There was, of course, no direct discussion of religion or religious values. The magazine floundered for a year or two, added an English version, went online, and finally died a quiet death. It was a phenomenal waste of time and money.
I don't know how we are going to resolve issues that surround our very different world views, but I am quite certain that restricting what we say - whether that means barring topics from textbooks or rejecting the use of terms like 'Islamic terrorist' and 'jihad' - is not a good start. Let's first be honest in our language and our discussions. That will be hard, but it is the surest way to the truth. If we get to the truth, let's hope that we can also find peace.
By
Ronald Rychlak
|
July 14, 2010; 1:28 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Violent 'Muslims' distort the tradition |
Next: A Sympathetic Ear
Posted by: probably-no-deity | July 18, 2010 7:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Many of the issues the Catholic church supports are in agreement with sharia law. The pope has almost as much sins on his list as any imam. They both are against abortion,gay marriage,pornography,adultery, woman as priests/imams, and are in agreement on many other social issues. There is no reason why they should not share the same mosque/church pulpit. It would further religious harmony.
Posted by: melpol1 | July 15, 2010 5:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Professor Rychlak sounds like a reasonable voice. I'd like to comment about the phrase "claimed responsibiity". Responsibility is the burden of obligation or reliability, dependability. We value a responsible employee and say that responsibility is a mark of maturity. If you want to connect it with something negative, use accept. However, I’d rather convince you to say "admit guilt". These groups are criminals, no matter their religious affiliation.
Posted by: PLSELE | July 15, 2010 1:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I call the Taliban/Al-Quada (they're really more or less the same crowd, pretending otherwise is one of their dodges of responsibility for heinous acts), "heroin terrorists" because most of their activity is funded by selling heroin & opium.
These terrorists all share radical religious imperialism as a goal. Mostly they're funded by opium sales too. Donations contribute some money, but mainly it's fueled by drug money. Arab & Asian nations don't want to ask `where is all that heroin going', because the answers are awkward. It's not going to the USA, the majority is also not going to Europe, so where does that leave after all?
Arab governments seem mostly immune to the fact that these extremists want to overthrow their governments too. Which is just delusional, and a matter of convenience that plays into, and off of, their pre-existing biases. Pakistan and a few other countries have learned enough of the truth through having their innocents blown up to start to see the truth for what it is, but they still have some distance to go before everyone gets on board there even. There's a culture of weaseling that goes along with this stuff that leaves them open to exploitation sadly enough, and their blind hatred of Israel creates a monster blind spot that the imperialists exploit constantly.
The US, and NATO, have ended up in the position where they have to act as anti-imperialists, and this is not an easy thing for populations to take to heart. Iraq has become probably the best example of the truth of this, with the US hanging in there until the country could get it's act together enough to run itself. It took a long time, and an awful lot of on the ground work by average soldiers, much less diplomats & leaders, for the people of that country to accept the truth of that. However, having finally done it, they're at least engaging the gears of a new state, and juddering off to a fitful start on their own.
In any case, I call them heroin terrorists & imperialists because that is who they are, and that is what their goals are.
The states they want to create are doomed to failure, but for them it's about power & the adrenal rush of planning an executing violent acts. It's not about creating any decent nation, or a place where anyone rational would want to live, much less raise a family. These are rather obvious truths, but between not wanting to see them, and not knowing any better, and fear, well that keeps them going.
Posted by: Nymous | July 14, 2010 9:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rychalk has it right.
Posted by: PerpetuaofCarthage | July 14, 2010 6:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
. . . and Prof. Rychlak, I challenge you to debate me on the alleged terrorists behind 9/11, and their motivation.
Enver Masud
Founder, The Wisdom Fund
Posted by: twforg | July 14, 2010 5:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
When is the last time we heard establishment news media use the term Judaic terrorism or Christian terrorism?
Realpolitik = Power Politics = Terrorism (see http://www.twf.org/Library/Terrorism.html), and state sponsored terrorists have done more damage than others.
That's why the US opposes the definition proposed the UN High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change "as any action 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 organisation to do, or abstain from, any act."
Posted by: twforg | July 14, 2010 5:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
.....................................(..U;S;A..).............................
........................oooooooooooooooooooooo......
....................ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.........
............oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
.........oooooooo................oooo.................oooooooo......
......ooooooo.....................oooo.....................ooooooo...
.....oooooo........................oooo........................oooooo..
....oooooo.........................oooo..........................oooooo.....
....ooooo...........................oooo............................ooooo
.....oooooo......................oooooo.......................oooooo
.....oooooo.....................oooooooo....................oooooo
......ooooo...................oooooooooooo................ooooo
.......oooooo..........oooo....oooo....oooo..........oooooo
.........ooooooooo..............oooo................oooooooo....
...........oooooooo..............oooo..............oooooooo....
...............oooooooo..........oooo...........oooooooo.....
..................oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo............
........................oooooooooooooooooooooo..................
..............................oooooooooooooooo....
...................................ooooooooooo
.. . . . .PEACE, SHALOM, SALAAM. AHIMSA, ZINGYU,
THAT. . . . ..PAZ, FRIEDAN, MIR..…LOVE, ROCK-n-ROLL..!
1) "Let there be NO Worship of JEALOUSY as a G-D/ALLAH/iSHVARA et al!"
2) "Let there be NO Abuse of LOVE to forgive UNCORRECTED-SIN(s)!"
3) "Let there be NO Hassling over a NAME for G-d!"
4) "Let there be NO Denial of Freedom of the O.ne U.niversal R.eligion et al!"
5) "Let there be NO Dishonoring of HONORABLE Parents!"
6) "Let there be NO Unjustifiable HOMICIDE or HURTING!"
7) "Let there be NO Sex with Non-CONSENTERS or BEASTS!"
8) "Let there be NO Theft from NON-THIEVES or NON-USERERS!"
9) "Let there be NO False WITNESSING or Un-JUST Judging!"
0) "Let there be NO Envy of HUE{MATES or Folks keeping these FIATS of O.U.R. NEW-SONG!"
. . . . . Credit to "JJ" . . @ . . http://onwapo.com