By Ijaz Chaudhry
The word or term ‘Terrorism’ is in use since time immemorial but appears far more frequently since 9/11. Another term, ‘Islamic Terrorism’ born after 9/11 has perhaps even surpassed ‘Terrorism’ as far as the media goes.
Terrorism is defined as ‘the unofficial or unauthorised use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims; also defined as a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.’
Human life in any part of the world is precious. The perpetrators deserve no sympathy- whatever their cause or motivation may be.
Unfortunately, over last decade and half, madness has engulfed most parts of the world. It was during this period that the terms of Islamic Terrorism and Muslim Terrorists surfaced. But a very relevant fact is often ignored. Who are the biggest sufferers of this phenomenon, the terrorist attacks?
The Muslims themselves; according to the US department-National Counter Terrorism Centre, Muslims suffered 82-97% of terror related fatalities over last five years. Then the Muslims who carry out terrorism are completely disowned by their own countries.
So often one listens or reads about fanatic Muslims or Islamic extremists. It is unacceptable to label him or her as an Islamic Terrorist or Muslim Terrorist- a terrorist has no religion. Same may argue that if a Muslim carried out an attack then it is appropriate to call it Muslim terrorism. Going by that analogy, there have been incidents of Christian and Jewish Terrorism as well. But these two terms are rarely used; rather allowed to be used.
Behring Breivik, called a right wing Christian fanatic by the Western media and who advocated Islamophobia and annihilation of Eurabia, massacred 77 people in Oslo in two separate incidents in a single day in 2011. He wasn’t termed a Christian terrorist. In fact, after a psychiatric examination, he was diagnosed as a patient suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. Though, later the court declared him sane and sentenced him to 21 years imprisonment, the maximum under the Norwegian law. Never, not once, was he called Christian terrorist.
New Statesman’s Peter Wilby argued following the attacks by white Anders Behring Breivik,
“When an attack comes from people with brown skins, we know what to make of it. It is an example of “Islamic terrorism”, and part of a worldwide conspiracy to overthrow civilisation as we know it. Brown-skinned folk must be closely monitored. Islam’s holy book and the statements of Muslim leaders of all sorts must be scrutinised for anything that appears to encourage or excuse violent acts.
When a white supremacist [engages in acts of terrorism] our responses – or at least those of the media – are instinctively different. While any Muslim killer is potentially an al-Qaeda agent, [a white man] must be an unhinged loner and misfit. The category “Christian terrorist” does not exist and so neither the Pope nor the Archbishop of Canterbury is called upon to dissociate himself.”
Wilby adds that an extreme suspicion surrounds ordinary Muslims, while the violence of white extremists often goes ignored, “Police regularly find white supremacists in possession of rocket launchers, grenades, pipe bombs and manuals on how to use them. None of these cases were prominently reported in the national media. Muslims, on the other hand, need only sneeze or download a dubious text from the internet to put the mass-circulation press on red alert.”
On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin (USA). Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the country’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color but still no one called it ‘White or Christian Terrorism’.
In 2012, in an Islamophobic attack, three Muslims were shot down in Chapel Hill, USA by a white atheist. As hours went by with the mainstream US news outlets failing to cover the attack, social media users expressed outrage at the media’s refusal to recognise the murder of three innocent Muslims by a white man as a terrorist attack.
In ‘The Independent’, Sabbiyah Pervez wrote, “At the time of writing this, many still haven’t given it any coverage, and people are furious. Do the lives of Muslims not matter? They have asked. Is our blood cheap? Why do we not get the same media attention when a crime is committed against us? This was a despicable act of Islamophobia. This will and has caused terror. But will the killer be branded a terrorist? Will the atheist community come out in force and condemn this man?”
It might surprise many that nearly twice as many Americans have been killed by right-wing extremists since 9/11 as have died at the hands of radical Muslims on US soil, as per a July 2015 report. There have also been nearly three times as many deadly right-wing attacks as jihadist ones.
In the dictionary, terrorism is also defined as the terroristic method of governing a country. Going by that, no one could deny that Israel is a terrorist state.
Israel is a Jewish state; created in the name of Judaism. It is neither since 1967 nor since 1948 but it began in 1890s when the Zionist movement got roots in the area. Two of British Palestine police’s posters of wanted terrorists depicted faces of two future Prime Ministers of Israel: Yitzhak Yezernitzky (also known as Yitzhak Shamir) in 1944 and Menachem Bergin in 1947. The latter was even awarded the Noble Peace Prize. Yes, a declared terrorist. What would be the reaction of the West if this happens in a Muslim country? What to talk of the Prime Minister, even for a provincial minister. In all probability, it would be immediately declared a Terrorist State- but not Israel.
Ethnic cleansing is Israel’s agenda. As recently as 2014, according to the UN, Israel was responsible for 2.314 Palestinian deaths in one calendar year. Killing is one part of it. Another aspect is displacing Palestinians to provide land for Jews. Since June 1967, the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions (ICAHD) estimates at least 27,000 Palestinian homes and structures lawlessly destroyed.
Israel had been condemned in around 50 resolutions by the United Nations Human Rights Council since its creation in 2006. These resolutions comprised almost half of all country-specific resolutions passed.
Calling it Jewish terrorism (rather than Israeli terrorism) would not be inappropriate. But can the mainstream Western media dare do so?
The American-Israel Nexus: Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of the US aid since World War II. Almost all the US aid to Israel is now in the form of military assistance, while in the past it also received significant economic assistance. Strong congressional support for Israel has resulted in Israel receiving benefits not available to other countries.
In addition to financial and military aid, the United States also provides political support to Israel, having used its United Nations Security Council veto power more times with respect to resolutions relating to Israel than on all the other issues combined.
So again the very definition of terrorism makes it Jewish-USA terrorism. Sounds strange as none of us has come across it but the definition supports it. It can be argued that the Jewish terrorism is the corollary of it.
In India, in a high-profile case, CBI investigators in 2010 arrested several members of Abhinav Bharat and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), both known right wing Hindu extremist organisations, and charged them with attacks in 2007 on the Mecca Mosque in Hyderabad that killed nine, and the Ajmer Sufi shrine in Rajasthan state that killed three and left dozens wounded. As soon as the term “Hindu Terrorism” appeared in the media, the Hindu nationalist leaders got infuriated, “Nobody should be allowed to use the term ‘Hindu terror’,” said Vinod Bansal, a spokesman for Vishva Hindu Parishad, a Hindu nationalist group.
Tarun Vijay, the BJP leader came out with a mind boggling statement, “The BJP equally deplored the use of word “Islamic terror” but held Muslim groups responsible for making Islam synonymous with terrorism.”
He added, “There is a difference between Islamic terrorism and Hindu extremism. There are Hindu radicals in India which engage in violence but they don’t claim that their acts of violence are in the name of Hinduism, contrary Lashkar-i-Toiba and al Qa’eda claim violence is prescribed by Islam,” he said.
Muslim leaders in India retorted, saying this logic is ludicrous. Moulana Arshid Madani, the president of Jamiat-Ulama-i-Hind, one of the largest Muslim organisations in India, said, “Some attacks on Muslims are the work of Hindu extremists and groups such as the BJP should not feel insulted by the term “Hindu terror”.
In the Buddhist majority country of Myanmar, Rohingya Muslims are one of the most persecuted groups in the world. Stripped of citizenship in the 1980s, the Rohingya have been a subject of frequent racist propaganda and blistering violence. The anti-Muslim campaign is spearheaded by controversial monk Ashin Wirathu, the leader of an ultranationalist group called 969, which opposes the growth of Islam in Myanmar. He was jailed in 2003 for inciting hatred and stirring sectarian clashes but released in 2010. In Sri Lanka and Thailand, two other Buddhist majority countries, there have been incidents of anti-Muslim violence in recent times.
The Iraq war 2003 was started by the USA under the pretext of Weapons of Mass Destruction possessed by Saddam Hussain led government.
After the occupation of Iraq, no WMDs were recovered- admitted the American authorities. This fact alone makes the Iraqi invasion an act of State Terrorism. As more than 99% of the invading 200,000 troops came from three Anglo-Saxon countries: USA, UK and Australia, what about calling it Anglo-Saxon terrorism.
The debate would never end. If there is an Islamic or Muslim Terrorism then there is certainly Christian, Jewish/Israeli, Hindu, Buddhist, USA-Israel, Anglo-Saxon……
Muslims rightly feel offended by the term of ‘Islamic or Muslim Terrorism”. Ironically, the Muslims themselves have been the biggest target and suffered the most in the hands of their perverted co-religionists.
Even the most talked about acts of terrorism such as the 9/11 and the 7/7 were not directed exclusively towards non-Muslims as a number of Muslims died in these attacks. Muslims are also the biggest victims in the countries where they are in minority or are under subjugation.
A Terrorist is only a “TERRORIST”
