Spiritual Health Learning Community Center Exploring Life's Horizons »   Terrorism Menu Terrorism - Reflections On Its Dynamics, Nature, and History The Face Of Terror - Part One The following was written more than seven years prior to 9/11 (Excerpt from: The Chaco Canyon Tapes) -------------- Rachel Donaldson was done quenching her thirst and pointed to a person three or four rows in front of me who had raised her hand. Dr. Donaldson said: "Yes, Karen, you have a question?" "Actually, Rachel," Karen said, "I wanted to hear something more about what you have to say with respect to some of these Muslim terrorist groups. A few of the comments in your talk briefly dealt with this issue, and I found your ideas somewhat intriguing. "I've read quite a few reports recently which state that tragedies like the Oklahoma City bombing notwithstanding, the FBI considers Islamic groups to be the number one source of terrorist threats to America today. Moreover, there are many places internationally which seem to be suffering from the same kind of problem. "I don't really have a specific question to ask you on this. Nonetheless, I would be interested in listening to whatever you have to say on this general issue." Dr. Donaldson took a deep breath and exhaled somewhat forcibly through her mouth. She arched her eyebrows slightly. She studied the ceiling for a few seconds and, then, lowered her head and began to speak. "I guess the first thing which should be addressed is people's tendency to look at the issue of terrorism in very superficial terms." As she finished her sentence, she looked at Karen, smiled and said: "Don't worry, Karen, you are not the sort of person I have in mind when I speak about superficial views of terrorism." After a bit of scattered laughter had subsided, Professor Donaldson continued on. "The first part of my response, Karen, may not seem as if it has anything to do with your request, so I would ask for your patience and the patience of the rest of the people here. However, I believe, or hope, that before I am through, you will all see the relevance of the earlier portion of my comments to Karen's request concerning the issue of terrorism among certain Muslim groups." Having, to a degree, prepared her audience for what was to follow, Professor Donaldson began."There are a lot of complex currents which run through both individuals and organizations. Historical, psychological, political, economic, religious, cultural, educational and ecological factors all are woven together in subtle dynamics which create an endless array of patterns in the life of an individual or organization. "These patterns are not static entities. They change in various ways over time and across circumstances. "Nevertheless, there usually are enough similarities and constants from one situation to the next which enable us to recognize various character traits in individuals, as well as in organizations. These traits serve as a kind of identifying signature through which we distinguish one group from another or one individual from another. "On the other hand, despite the presence of certain identifiable, relatively constant traits, people and organizations do not necessarily act in the same manner on all occasions. In other words, they exhibit what is referred to as dispositional behavior. "Dispositional behavior is the tendency of an individual or an organization to act in certain ways in some circumstances and, yet, still allow for the possibility of acting in different ways in similar circumstances on other occasions. A dispositional trait occurs often enough to serve as something of an identifiable or distinguishing feature, but such a tendency is mixed in with an array of other behavioral possibilities. "Thus, to have a disposition toward violent behavior does not mean an individual or organization will be violent under all circumstances. What it means is that in the past an individual or organization has been violent on enough occasions to permit someone to make a judgement which establishes an association or linkage between the descriptive term "violent" and a given organization or individual." Professor Donaldson took a quick sip of water from the glass sitting on the rostrum. As she was putting the glass back down, she remarked: "One problem with making judgements concerning people's dispositional behavior, however, is this. In making such judgements, people have very different ideas about how many occasions of, say, violence, need to be observed in order to claim that a linkage between the descriptive qualifier 'violent' and a given individual or organization is accurate or fair. "One person will observe representatives of an organization act violently, in some way, on only one occasion. However, for whatever reasons, such an individual will feel justified in describing such an organization as 'violent'. "Another person may see members of an organization exhibit a number of violent acts on various occasions. Yet, when the observed episodes of violent acts are considered in the context of a wide variety of other, non-violent acts carried out by members of the same organization, then the observer in question may not judge either the organization or its representatives as being characteristically inclined to violent behavior." She paused for a moment, removed her glasses, took out a handkerchief, moistened the glasses with her breath, and began cleaning them. While going about the process of wiping her glasses, she proceeded to speak. "Another problem in making judgements about the dispositional behavior of individuals and organizations revolves around the criteria and values we use for deciding what is to count as a violent act. Suppose, for example, individual 'A' attempts, unsuccessfully, to punch person 'B', and, in the process, person 'B' defends himself or herself and hits individual 'A'. "Some observers may be inclined to call the act of the first individual a violent one, irrespective of whether or not that person landed a blow. Alternatively, if person 'B' is perceived not to have initiated the fight, then an observer may not count the act of person 'B' to be a violent one even though 'B' landed a blow. "On the other hand, still other observers may count the acts of both 'A' and 'B' as violent ones. For these people, the question of who started the whole thing, or who, if anyone, landed a blow, is irrelevant." Satisfied with the condition of her glasses, Professor Donaldson placed them back on her head. She spent a few seconds adjusting them, still talking while completing the task. "Of course, an act does not necessarily have to be in the form of a physical blow to qualify or count as a violent act. For instance, some people may wish to count unkind or mean words as instances of violent behavior. "In addition, emotional outbursts, acts of omission, betrayal, indifference, rejection and indoctrination all might count as instances of violent behavior under certain circumstances. Similarly, creating conditions which cause or perpetuate hunger, poverty, homelessness, injustice or illness could be judged by some people to be acts of violence. "Alternatively, an individual might be considered to have done violence to the truth through acts of lying, disinformation, propaganda, and prejudice. Furthermore, requiring people to attend educational programs which do not necessarily serve the economic, political or spiritual needs of the students may, for some people, count as a form of violence. "Some vegetarians may wish to charge meat-eaters with doing violence to animal life." Dr. Donaldson flashed a brief smile and said: "On the other hand, some vegetables may want to remind vegetarians of the violence the latter inflicts on the former." There were some audible laughs in the audience. Perhaps, there were a few appreciative vegetables in attendance that I had failed to notice on the way to my seat. Dr. Donaldson let the noise subside. "Another problem surrounding the issue of dispositional judgements concerning, say, violent behavior is the following. We often evaluate situations very differently depending whether we are talking about others or about ourselves. "Frequently, we are quite prepared to label someone else's behavior as violent, while denying that the same kind of act done by ourselves is violent. We have a tendency to rationalize our acts and, as a result, we color them as reasonable or justifiable or appropriate. "Generally, this process of cosmeticising our acts means that either we do not count our acts as violent or we call them legitimate acts of violence. In the latter case, we often like to argue that such legitimate acts of violence should not be considered as being relevant to any assessment, by ourselves or others, of our dispositional tendency toward violence. "This process of rationalization and denial which allows us to dissociate our self-image from some of the acts we perform can lead to very bizarre situations. A person can be quite abusive of others, even to the point of torturing such people, and, yet, believe himself or herself to be a decent, peaceful, compassionate, non-violent individual. All it takes is a little creative emotional book-keeping in relation to whether we label our acts as liabilities or assets. "One trick which is used to cook these emotional ledgers is the following. We say to ourselves the other person's acts of violence reveal something essential about that person. Such acts, we say, are inherent features of that person's being, like some species of original sin. "Our own acts of violence, on the other hand, are judged to be nothing more than peripheral, temporary lapses. Momentary storms in an otherwise peaceful sea. We tend to always see ourselves as playing Abel to the other person's Cain." Professor Donaldson started to lean on the rostrum but found it a little unstable. She straightened up and moved to the side of the rostrum. "Not surprisingly," she declared, "we often do not extend to others the same liberties, privileges or degrees of freedom involving dispositional judgements which we generously extend to ourselves. Instead, we frequently label the explanations of others, concerning their behavior, to be expressions of denial or propaganda or mere excuses intended to help them avoid responsibility for the real nature of their acts. "Judgements about whom does violence to whom can become quite problematic. For example, one person censors another and, in the judgement of the latter, the former is doing violence to the freedoms, rights or beliefs of the latter. On the other hand, from the perspective of the one whom is doing the censoring, the views of the one being censored do violence to fundamental values, principles or standards of the ones doing the censoring. "Such differences of opinion concerning the perceived locus of violence about, in this case, the issue of censorship, often lead to other actions by the concerned parties. These further actions raise the same question of whom does violence to whom, in, yet, another context. The process is called 'escalation'." Moving back behind the rostrum, she said: "The act of labeling can itself be an expression of violence. When rumor, gossip, slander, libel, innuendo, and unfounded speculation destroy a person's life, violence has been done to such an individual. "Consequently, when governments or the media refer to an individual or an organization as a terrorist group, there are a number of questions which need to be asked and explored. For instance, what behaviors are being counted as constituting acts of terrorism?" Dr. Donaldson scrunched up her lips in a way that suggested she were considering something. "Suppose," she began, "an organization is trying to defend itself against oppression or attempting to confront some sort of social injustice and, as a result, uses violence as part of its response to such perceived wrongs. Does the display of violence necessarily mean such an organization deserves to be labeled as 'terrorist'? "Revolutionaries, freedom fighters, underground resistance groups, and guerrillas all use violence. When does their use of such violence qualify as acts of terrorism? How do we differentiate between possible legitimate uses of violence and illegitimate expressions of violence?" She took another drink of water. This time she continued to hold the glass in her hand while expanding on her previous comments. "Why were the mujahidin's acts of resistance with respect to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan widely considered to be the acts of patriots, but the mujahidin of Palestine or Lebanon are said to be terrorists? They both employed extreme acts of violence. In both cases, innocent people, along with not-so-innocent people, lost their lives as a result of the actions of the mujahidin. What factors are influencing our dispositional judgements to treat similar acts of violence in comparable situations in quite different ways? "Consider another, related case. There were individuals who journeyed from various Muslim countries to Afghanistan in order to lend support to the mujahidin. They were said to be freedom fighters. "Yet, when these individuals returned home and fought against injustices, oppression and abuses of human rights similar to those in Afghanistan, they became terrorists. What led to this transformation in our judgements of their dispositional behavior with respect to the use of violence?" Professor Donaldson gave her question a chance to percolate in the minds of the audience. She returned the glass to the rostrum and quickly swept her eyes across the faces in the room, sighing slightly. "When Jewish resistance groups, such as Irgun, Lehi or Haganah, took the lives of innocent people or Jewish collaborators, they were said to be fighting a war of liberation against British occupation. When the PLO took the lives of innocent people or Palestinian collaborators while trying to fight a war of liberation against Israeli occupation, the PLO was said to be a terrorist group. Why are we treating similar cases in very different ways? "Between 1948 and 1956, various Israeli military operations massacred a total of over 1000 Palestinian civilians. These deaths occurred at places like: Deir Yassin, Doueimah, Qibya, al-Bureig, Kafr Kassim and Khan Yunis. "The PLO did not come into existence until 1968, more than twelve years after the acts of Israeli violence against Palestinians to which I've just alluded. However, between 1968 and 1981, various PLO military operations massacred a total of some 280 Israeli citizens. Yet, despite beginning quite a long time after the initial Israeli acts of violence against Palestinians, and despite being less than one-third as deadly as the attacks of their Israeli counterparts, the Palestinians are the only ones who are considered terrorists. "There seems to be considerable inconsistency in the way the same kinds of acts of violence are being labeled in situations which bear many resemblances to one another. Considerations of race, religion, ethnic origins, national aspirations, political affiliation, economic interests, and media biases all can skew this labeling process." She ran her hands through her hair and pushed the bridge of her glasses back up her nose toward her forehead. She took her right hand and cupped it around the nape of her neck and just left it there for a short while as she talked, letting her elbow sort of hang in front of her. "Governments, police forces, the military, security people and intelligence agencies all use violence, just as revolutionary and resistance fighters do. Naturally, not all acts of aggression or violence qualify as terrorist acts. And, this is true for both those who are in power, as well as those who are not in power. "Acts designed to protect sovereignty, peace and tranquillity may, or may not, constitute an act of terrorism, depending on circumstances. The problem is: one person's tranquility is quite frequently founded on the misery and oppression of others. "When does, for example, a government's use of violence qualify as terrorist acts against its citizens? Is a government or police force entitled to do anything it likes simply because it is a legally constituted body? "Were the deaths at Kent State, more than twenty years ago, regrettable consequences of a legal use of force or were those deaths the result of an act of terrorism? Was the violence used against Native peoples at Wounded Knee in South Dakota in 1973 part of a federally-sponsored campaign of terror against Native peoples, or was such violence merely an attempt to stop the illegal activities of a number of Native people? "When a government, friendly to the United States, employs tactics of death squads, torture, disappearances, abuse of human rights, sham trials, censorship, and indoctrination in order to protect its vested interests, are these not acts of violence which are of a terrorist nature? Should they no longer be considered of a violent or terrorist nature simply because the vested interests being protected may be beneficial to our country?" Having asked a number of questions, Dr. Donaldson was quiet for ten seconds or so, allowing her ideas to have a little more time to bounce around in the minds and hearts of the audience. She looked down at the floor and massaged her forehead. She raised her head. "Let's consider a hypothetical Muslim group. This group, and the individuals belonging to it, will be assumed to be dispositionally inclined toward playing an activist role of some sort in their communities. In other words, the group and its members have a tendency to act in ways that are intended to help influence and shape what goes on around them socially, spiritually, politically, economically, educationally and/or ecologically. "To be an activist, does not necessarily entail that one will be inclined to use tactics of violence or terror to achieve one's aims. Some activists are inclined toward violence, and some activists are not inclined toward violence. "Furthermore, even among those activists who may be inclined toward acts of violence, there are a spectrum of dispositional possibilities. Some activists may exhibit violence only in situation-specific circumstances, such as when they are provoked or attacked. Other activists may be prepared to inflict violence on others but only in accordance with certain values or principles concerning who is and who is not to be a target. Still other activists who may be inclined to violent behavior may be quite indiscriminate in their destructive activities and interested in terrorizing everyone in an attempt to gain their objectives. "For purposes of discussion, let's consider our hypothetical Muslim group to be a collection of socially concerned citizens. What are some of the issues which have brought individuals to such a group? "There are a number of recurrent themes that keep surfacing in Muslims groups with an activist disposition. To begin with, there tends to be a general disillusionment among the members of these groups concerning the ability of existing political, economic and social institutions to deal effectively with a wide variety of social justice issues such as poverty, homelessness, hunger and other inequities. "In addition, not only are many of these groups disenchanted with the performance of various social institutions, they also tend to reject different kinds of 'isms'. Materialism, modernism, secularism, imperialism, racism, and colonialism all are seen as being sources of problematic, if not malevolent, influences in the world." Professor Donaldson held up the first two fingers of her left hand and shook them a few times very gently. As she did this, she said: "Secondly, questions of identity, purpose, meaning and values are driving forces for the members of these groups. Moreover, people in these groups seek to derive their answers to these questions from an understanding of Islam. "However, not all Muslims and not all Muslim groups have an identical understanding of what they believe Islam says about issues of identity, purpose, meaning and so on. A lot of inter- and intra- group conflict arises as a result of these kinds of interpretational difference concerning Islam. "Up to a certain point, such groups, or, more accurately, the individuals within them, will agree completely on what Islam entails in the way of beliefs, values and practices. Yet, despite these commonalities, differences of interpretation, application, interests, priorities, commitment, goals and intentions arise. "These differences have a significant impact on how various individuals or groups go about trying to resolve, among other things, issues of social justice. In fact, whether or not a given Muslim individual or group feels violence is justified in solving, for example, social justice issues, will depend on how they interpret Islam. "As is true in every religious tradition, there are many Muslims who tend to treat their understanding of their own religious tradition as the only correct understanding of things. Consequently, when, for example, their own interpretation of Islam gives them permission or license to commit acts of violence, they believe this means that God is giving them permission or license to do so. They are assuming their way of seeing things reflects Divine knowledge of things." Professor Donaldson again held up her left hand at about face level. This time her hand was showing three fingers. "Thirdly, many of the people in these Muslim groups seem to feel a deep sense of urgency about solving the problems of society. As a result, there often is a sort of revolutionary fervor about their attitudes, feelings and activities. "Moreover, not only do many of the individuals in these groups tend to believe that social transformation must happen now, very frequently many of them tend to believe they have unique roles to play in helping to bring about such change. Therefore, such individuals often believe their vision, piety, commitment, talent, leadership and knowledge will help make the difference between success and failure in the transformational process. "The belief that one's potential contribution has an important role to play in bringing about change tends to create a deep sense of responsibility in an individual. As a result, such people and groups often feel pressure to act and discharge their duty to destiny." Dr. Jameson held up her right hand in a closed position. One by one her fingers came up as she ran through a summary of what she had said previously. "The disillusionment with the efficacy of social institutions, the alienation from many of the 'isms' which are currently influential, the belief in the correctness of one's understanding, the sense of urgency, the revolutionary fervor, and the deep sense of having a unique contribution to make to the group's cause- all of these combine to form a very powerful motivational dynamic, both within the individual and the larger group. The force of this dynamic often tends to manifest itself as a belief that the group and its members are participating in a revival of, or a return to, the original, pure spirit of Islam. "This conviction that one is an instrument of the original spirit of Islam may be exploited in a variety of ways by both an organization and the individuals in that group. In fact, on a fairly regular basis, one encounters a primary method which is utilized by these groups in an attempt to channel the powerful dynamics surrounding the belief that one is serving the original, true, pure spirit of Islam. This method involves linking the aforementioned dynamics to the belief that one is going to earn the undying gratitude of God for serving the true Islam. "In short, these groups claim that paradise or heaven is just around the corner for anyone who sincerely commits herself or himself to the group's interpretation of the original spirit of Islam. Many people find this kind of offer something which they cannot refuse. Indeed, some Muslims are prepared to excuse a multitude of sins, in themselves and in their groups, in order not to jeopardize their chances for the desired reward." Professor Donaldson checked her wristwatch. "My time is just about up, so I'll try to wrap this up fairly quickly." She took another drink of water. "Many Muslim groups talk about the 'true Islam' and the original spirit of Islam. However, mixed in with this talk, one also finds, quite frequently, a number of other motivational forces hiding beneath the outward talk. "This scenario of wolf-like motivations attempting to benefit from being hidden by the innocence and purity of sheep's wool is not exclusive to Muslims. It plays itself out in every religious tradition. "Some individuals are powerless and desire to be powerful. Some are alienated and want to have a sense of belonging. For each of these groups of people, Islam is not important except as a possible means of satisfying a variety of needs which are not necessarily of a spiritual nature. "Some Muslim groups want to bask in the euphoria of restoring what they believe is the lost glory of Islam. What they don't seem to understand is that Islam can never lose any of its glory. In reality, the glory which such people seek is the pride, arrogance and conceit of self-glorification. "Some of these groups and individuals are driven by national, ethnic, tribal, racial and/or religious hatreds. They wish to exploit Islam and hijack its moral authority to serve their dark purposes. "The true Islam, the original spirit of Islam, is completely preoccupied with, and absorbed in, qualities of love, compassion, charitableness, chivalry, justice, forgiveness, tolerance, kindness, gratitude, gentleness, humility, self-purification, patience, harmony and selflessness. Knowing Divinity, serving Divinity, trusting in Divinity, remembering Divinity, cherishing Divinity and loving Divinity are the woof and warp of the true Islam. "Consequently, to speak of Islamic terrorism is a contradiction in terms. On the other hand, to speak of the terrorism of someone who refers to himself or herself as Muslim is not necessarily a contradiction in terms. "So called Muslims who advocate the use of force and violence in order to impose their distorted interpretation of Islam onto others do a great violence to the spirit of Islam. This is so for four reasons. "First, the use of force and violence to induce compliance from others in matters of religion is inconsistent with one of the central precepts of Islam. More specifically, there can be no compulsion used in bringing about the realization of the essential spiritual nature of human beings. "The kind of submission which God seeks comes only through an individual's free will or unforced offering. To intimidate, extort, or terrorize people, in order to get them to adopt a Muslim's interpretation of things, completely violates the spiritual etiquette of Islam. "Secondly, with respect to those who resort to the use of force, violence or terror in order to secure acquiescence from others on a variety of social issues, such people display a profound lack of trust in God. Such people do not have confidence in the capacity of the will of Divinity to effectively carry out Divine purposes independently of what people do or don't do. "People who rely on violence and terror to achieve their allegedly spiritual objectives have a very inflated opinion of themselves. They seem to assume that if they did not use violence or terror, God would be helpless to realize Divine wishes. Such people have a pathetic and extremely warped understanding of the ways of Divinity. "Thirdly, whoever employs force and violence as tools of persuasion reveals an enormous poverty of imagination, creativity, wisdom and spiritual artistry. Submission comes through the heart's attraction to the beauty, nobility and integrity of the example which reflects the light of Divinity. Force and violence will never generate such attraction. "Someone once said: 'Violence is the last refuge of incompetence'. People who are inclined to terror and violence as instruments of spiritual evangelism are admitting incompetence. "In effect, they are acknowledging they lack the personal resources of integrity, inventiveness and a generosity of spirit which are needed to exercise spiritual competence in finding artful, non-violent solutions to problems in the face of adversity. There is absolutely nothing resourceful about killing other people. "Fourthly, and finally, anyone who uses force, violence and/or terror as part of their yellow-brick road to paradise is debasing the nature of the intention which should be behind all of a Muslim's actions. Everything should be done for the sake of God's satisfaction and pleasure. "If one is committing acts of violence because one believes this will be one's ticket of admission to heaven, the intention underlying one's acts is the achievement of paradise, not the pleasure of God. God's pleasure merely becomes a means to one's own ends. "In addition, if a group or individual actually believes that God finds either pleasure or satisfaction in acts of terror or misguided violence, then such people have a very distorted understanding of how to go about pleasing God. Unfortunately, such beliefs have been very prevalent throughout history, and not just amongst Muslims." | Terrorism - Part Two | Terrorism Menu | Copyright © 2005 Interrogative Imperative Institute. All Rights Reserved.