Feb. 1, 2002

The article on the definition of terrorism is excellent. (Terrorists and Freedom Fighters)

I'd just like to point out that, according to the utterly inadequate definitions provided by the Canadian government and by CSIS, the entire war effort of the Canadian armed forces during the Second World War in attacking Nazi Germany must be counted as terrorism! The key to a proper definition has to do with politically motivated attacks against non-combatants. However, given this widely accepted definition, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the fire-bombing of Dresden, were surely terrorist acts. (Which raises the interesting question: Can some terrorist acts be justified by appeal to their consequences?)

Another topic for your attention, if you haven't already addressed it: the use of the word "America" to refer exclusively to the USA. Yes, the United States is part OF America, but I find it annoying to have "America" used to mean the USA. Canada, Cuba, Brazil, etc., are just as much America as is the United States. Even the term "American" to mean a citizen of the USA is unfortunate. Let's call them "Usanians" or something suitably silly-sounding.

Yours truly,

Angus Taylor
Victoria, B.C.

Jan. 24, 2002

Regarding the article Terrorists and Freedom Fighters: It’s obvious that there is a grey area in the definition of terrorism, and there are cases where the definition is purely subjective. But there are bold black-and-white cases that all decent people would define the same way, and I think that it’s morally wrong to avoid the definition in those cases.

It’s agreed by everybody that the events of September 11 are terrorist acts. How come the deliberate killing of American civilians is a terrorist act, but that the deliberate killing of Israeli civilians is not? Isn't it obviously in a black area?

Deliberate killing of civilians should be labelled terrorism irrespective of who killed and who was killed, as well as their political or religious beliefs. This is in fact one of the views (of Boaz Ganor) that you quoted.

When a person is saying that he is not sure whether bombing a restaurant in Israel or India is a terrorist act, he is actually saying that maybe it’s justifiable to perform this act.

This is not a semantic question, this is a moral question.

Regards,

Genady Veytsman
Israel

Oct. 31, 2001

I appreciated your excellent and thoughtful article on the use of words, specifically "terrorism" and "freedom fighters." I noted the following quote about the G & M:

"The Globe and Mail tells its staff: 'Use this term to describe groups or individuals who use violence against the innocent public, or the threat of it, to achieve political ends.' Its 1998 Style Book cites several examples, including the Irish Republican Army and the Japanese Red Army. Neither group is on Washington's current (October 2001) list of terrorists."

I guess by this definition the Bush war in Afghanistan is terrorism, isn't it? And so, by definition, we Canadians are also terrorists by our government's support of this war.

I think we better draw back and reflect a bit on what we are doing , and let's get that "safe perimeter" built along our border so we can at least minimize the negative effects that are sure to come as a result of the terrorism coming in from the U.S.

Robert Wright

Oct. 30, 2001

My compliments on your comprehensive treatment of the term "terrorism." Indeed, I pulled up the CBC Web site in order to e-mail my irritation at your radio coverage of the current situation, in which the pat propaganda phrase "war on terrorism" seems to be repeated, ad nauseam, without the necessary quotation marks. I would reiterate this caution.

That particular phrase is very much a polemical product of the American state and its uncritical propagation must certainly have the insidious effect of reinforcing a particular perspective, without offering the necessary qualifications of same; and this works against CBC journalism's laudable conceit of "objectivity."

Perhaps the afternoon Toronto radio program announcers might sneak a peek at Terrorists and Freedom Fighters and give us a break. Keep up the great work.

Sincerely,

Owen Ford

Oct. 30, 2001

I hope that this will be read by the people who write the news. PLEASE stop referring to the attack on Afghanistan as the "War on Terrorism." Can't you hear the groans and hoots of derision that rise from around countless Canadian radios every time that overworked inaccurate phrase is used?

The attack on Afghanistan is a war OF terrorism. Put yourselves in the place of an Afghan person experiencing the reality. The terrifying noise, death and destruction all around, unexploded cluster bombs that look like food parcels, the insidious depleted uranium being used but never mentioned.

The U.S. and British power structure's declared intentions have changed from getting Bin Laden to wiping out the Taliban to forming a government that they can deal with (read "dominate"). The actual intention is more likely to establish a power base there.

A real "war" on terrorism would expose and stop the terrorism committed on both sides, starting with "our" side where the US and its allies do have control. It would begin by halting the bombing of Afghanistan, ending the sanctions (and bombings) killing thousands of Iraqis every month. It would recognize and respect the humanity of all of earth's citizens and would put life, health, truth, and the sustainability of the planet before greed and power. If we were honestly trying to help those in need share in the earth's resources and allowing them the self determination we expect for ourselves, instead of always "increasing our market share" no matter how destructive the fallout, who would want to terrorize us?

Lorna Diggle

Oct. 29, 2001

In his incisive analysis of how to and/or how not to use problematic labels such as "terrorist," Blair Shewchuk quotes NPR Ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin's excellent commentary on the issue.

Neither author, however, seems to avoid a generic "denotative" reference, a generic dictionary meaning. The most general one remains, however, the most simple: "Terrorism is any act that uses or threatens violence to induce fear," which parallels a quote from Noam Chomsky that cites the U.S. Army definition as "the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious or ideological in nature. This is done through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear."

This generic definition avoids the pitfalls of state vs. non-state vs. anti-state terror, terrorism and/or terrorist. Perhaps we also might broaden this definition to include domestic violence as terrorism. How many women and children live in terror of male violence or are terrified by threats?

War is terrible and terrifying for most involved, especially civilians who are legitimate targets under Karl von Clausewitz's definition of total war and the necessity of terrifying the enemy by any means necessary.

From Vietnam to Afghanistan, US military policy has favoured high altitude bombardments in part for the terrorizing effect of indiscriminate destruction raining down from unseen heights. Even with the more recent development of smart bombs and missiles, the terrorizing effect is nearly the same to those on the ground near to impacted targets. Think of the millions of Iraqi, Serbian, and Afghani children terrorized and traumatized by the bombing even when they were not directly hit by bombs.

Russians on the other hand prefer a more tangible strategy of terrorizing civilian populations by combining indiscriminate total area destruction wit face-to-face brutality, especially murder and torture in front of civilians. The latter tactic parallels those used in Afghanistan, which perhaps derives from Soviet-era occupation, but was also commonly used by Serb forces against Bosnians and Albanians, and continues to be daily fare in Chechnya. On a more general level, think about the terrorizing affects of landmines, which are much less discriminate, equally blowing up goats and pigs as well as children, but hardly ever soldiers.

In conclusion, there is no legitimate use of terror against civilian populations, either by anti-state freedom fighters or governmental forces state of coercion. If we have laws against domestic violence that define stalking as a criminal act of terrorizing victims, then why not an international version that judges all acts that terrorize civilian populations as illegal and criminal?

Such an approach to criminalizing terror, whether by state or non-state forces, places such actions increasingly under the rule of law. Such thinking might be able to reverse the total war theory of von Clausewitz as no longer necessary. In a world where our underlying problem is one of human survival as we enter a period of global climate change, vanishing biodiversity, diminishing resources, and overpopulation, total war is in fact absurd. Moreover, what place does such destructive behaviour have in our world of rapid globalisation wherein nation states are increasingly subject to international rules and regulations from trade to ISO standards, hence facing a reduced value for state sovereignty?

Unfortunately, male propensity toward violent behaviour and a warrior psychology has deep roots. We must therefore expect such behaviour to continue, including domestic violence. But is it not time to invest greater power in both national and international legal institutions to strengthen both the force of law and use of economic sanctions? And should not such instruments be applied equally against both governmental and other organizations involved in the use of terror as weapons?

In shifting the semantic and connotative use of terror into an international discourse on criminal behaviour, it could make it unacceptable throughout both media and public opinion for any organization, state or non-state to use terrorism against civilian populations for any purpose or at any time. Such legal institutions could also define military and non-military targets, and unacceptable levels of collateral damage to non-military targets, including civilians, and hold perpetrators responsible for material and punitive damages. Such strategies have precedent in the case of civil lawsuits against Libya for its involvement in the Lockerbie bombing as a terrorist act.

Here, I conclude by quoting a similar perspective cited in Shewchuk's article. Boaz Ganor, director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, defines terrorism as "any attack on civilians for political or religious reasons a major crime … [hence] freedom fighters attacking military targets would be seen as guerrillas not terrorists … If this definition which differs between terrorism and guerrilla warfare would be internationally accepted even terrorist organizations like notorious Hamas would think twice before killing innocent civilians. They would probably concentrate on military targets or risk losing support among Palestinians."

Ditto: equal global justice applied to the U.S.A. as well as everyone else would end any support for al-Qaeda from the Muslim world or elsewhere.

Jamil Brownson
Visiting Professor
California State University

Oct. 27, 2001

I enjoyed your thoughtful piece Terrorists and Freedom Fighters. You might consider looking at the term "arrest" as recently used by the CBC with reference to "Palestinian 'terrorists' " captured by Israeli forces during the recent invasions of Palestinian-controlled areas.

In this context the word "arrest" can only imply the lawful actions of the duly constituted and recognized authority having jurisdiction, and to make such an implication places the CBC far beyond the boundaries of fair reporting of events. Although the CBC might wish to avoid more accurate terms such as 'kidnapped' or 'abducted', surely the relatively neutral 'seized' could be used.

Similarly, the constant reference to Gilo as a "Jerusalem neighbourhood" is a strictly North American phenomenon. Elsewhere Gilo is referred to, accurately, as "a settlement illegal under international law". Although the constant repetition of this refrain (X, a settlement …) can at times make for tiresome reading, it has the merits of clarity and precision. The use of the term "Jerusalem neighbourhood" can only be understood as an attempt to confuse and conceal the true status of Gilo.

Small points, to be sure, but when reporting the news to many for whom the CBC may be the only serious source of information, and who have no inclination to examine the issues in depth, such language can lead to very substantial misapprehensions of the state of the world.

Cheers,

Brian Allardice
Burnaby, B.C.

Oct. 26, 2001

After reading "Words: Woe and Wonder", I thought about the words and wanted to point out an inconsistency that CBC is not only guilty of but all North American media and to some extent, the European media as well.

That word is 'jihad' – translated by CBC reporters on TV and radio as "holy war". As a student of Arabic, I wanted to point out that this is totally baseless in Arabic or Islamic thought. The Koran is the key to the Arabic language and to this day is used for gaining an understanding of classical Arabic. Jihad simply means "struggle" in the closest Arabic to English translation. "Holy", in Arabic would constitute the word "Quddoos", which is one of the 99 names of God in the Koran.

Therefore, my point is simple. "Holy war" is not an Arabic or Islamic concept but actually a Judeo-Christian word. During the times of the crusades, Pope Urban II, urged European Christians to go for a "holy war" to "free the land of Jerusalem from the infidels". And that is where this phrase has emerged. Let us keep it limited to that side of history.

By reporting as CBC is currently, you are inflaming the passions of the Muslim community here and playing into the arguments going on in some circles that Muslims can never get fair treatment at the hands of Western governments. I know that argument to be a farce after being educated here for the most part of my life. Now, I look to you to help me in this regard.

I thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Regards,

Nabeel Hasan
Richmond Hill, Ont.

Editor's Note: Thank you for sharing your concern. In September, the column Backlash of Bigotry briefly addressed the word. It noted: "There is debate over the controversial concept of jihad, which is often defined as a "holy war" – the modern-day equivalent of the Crusades fought by Christians almost a millennium ago. Some theologians believe that the word, which actually means "effort," refers to defending one's life, land and religion, as well as striving internally to improve. Although they concede it may also mean an active campaign against any unjust regime, they insist that such a war can be waged only against political leaders, not innocent people. But radical Islamic fundamentalists view the scripture far differently. Virtually nothing is off limits during jihad, according to them, including the kidnapping, hijacking, and murder of civilians."

Earlier this month, CBC News Online writer and editor Gary Katz also outlined the meaning of "jihad" as part of his review of Islam in an article called The will of God.

Oct. 24, 2001

Thank you. A good article. (Terrorists and Freedom Fighters.) I like the Reuters approach.

"The chief object of education is not to learn things but to unlearn them." G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) English essayist, novelist, journalist, poet.

Words can be wonderful. Those used in stories by J.R.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) or Margaret Lawrence (The Stone Angel.) But they can also be abusive, like former U.S. President L.B.J.'s thundering remark to then P.M. Pearson, "You pissed on my rug!" regarding Pearson's qualified support of the U.S. action (i.e., foreign policy) in the Vietnam War.

When abusive, words can be used to brainwash and manipulate (i.e., terror). On the other hand, a compliment or word of praise can induce wonders.

It seems to me then, that when one presents any argument, both sides at least should be presented (i.e., the facts). More than one source wouldn't hurt. This allows the one viewing to come to an informed choice and possibly, alternative creative solutions that, hopefully, benefit the majority (i.e., "Of the people, for the people, by the people.")

"The only sure weapon against bad ideas is better ideas. The source of better ideas is wisdom. The surest path to wisdom is a liberal education." Alfred Whitney Griswold (1906-1963) US educator, historian.

Stacy L. Hird

Oct. 23, 2001

Soon after the Sept. 11 incident, somewhere in States, a Greyhound bus was hijacked by a Croatian man, and the driver was attacked with a knife cutting his throat. The incident was classified as "not a terrorist attack". Question is, how that attack would have been classified as if the attacker was an Arab instead of a Croat?

Thanks,

Irfan Haqqee

Oct. 23, 2001

To this old man of 72 years, having survived World War II, I wonder how the word "terrorist" came into our daily speech. I heard words like "the underground" to describe those who would undermine the invaders.

The first recollection I have of the word terrorist was when the Jewish Olympic team was attacked and 13 athletes died. Terrorists to this old man conjure up fear panic uncertainty, and asking who is doing this to us and why?

Maybe Osama bin Laden wants to take over the whole world, covert us to being Muslim, or is he just another cruel, sadistic person who loves to kill or maim people who have a better life style than he? Don't forget the United States was born out of terror attacks on the British. They called themselves the "Minutemen."

Joseph William Lea
Etobicoke, Ontario

Oct. 19, 2001

In the column Terrorists and Freedom Fighters, what is the difference between civilian and "noncombatant"? Could one consider noncombatant to include clerks and cooks in the army?

Eleanor Haydock
Vancouver, B.C.

Editor's Note: The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines "non-combatant" as either a civilian or "a member of a military force who is not engaged in combat, e.g. a doctor, chaplain, etc." Webster's avoids the hyphen. Otherwise, the definitions are virtually identical.

Oct. 18, 2001

I have been much impressed by the scholarship and thoughtful commentary on CBC recently. Thank You.

Many must be wondering if the U.S.-led alliance has developed a clear war plan like a business plan, and perhaps fear that we have embarked on a world-wide game of "Chicken".

Sincerely,
Bill Panton

top | main index | archived letters | contact us