by Ann Williams
CONCLUSION
To sum up, we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions about terror attacks in today’s world unless we are prepared to discard the simplistic solutions of both the political right and left, and actually start to think independently. We need to ask ourselves questions, and to find out information.
What makes a terrorist? What actually goes on in the schools, mosques, training camps, cells and bomb factories of groups such as al-Qaeda? How does the kind of situation come about in which young people from relatively stable, economically secure backgrounds are prepared to kill themselves and others for a set of abstract beliefs? Is theirs a form of nihilism, or a perverted sense of idealism? And what is it in modern society that pushes second-generation immigrants into the arms of fundamentalist religious teachers – a sense of meaninglessness in the face of our consumer society? A feeling of exclusion? Or perhaps a type of psychological fragmentation that results when two value systems can no longer be held together? If so, is there anything we can do to change our Western way of life, to make it more inclusive, more human in scale, less aggressively materialist, perhaps more respectful of our differing spiritual needs?
Asking, and trying to answer, such questions is not to condone terror attacks. It is simply a way of trying to move forward, so that we can begin to understand the roots of the problem. We have seen that vowing to wage a ‘war on terrorism’ and finding scapegoats has only intensified the conflict. We now have to begin to think more creatively, and begin to find real solutions to what has become a new form of global warfare, waged by terrorists on the streets of our cities, and in the airspace of our nations, rather than by soldiers on the battlefield.
The Origins Of Terrorism
The word ‘terrorism’ actually entered into the European language in the wake of the French revolution of 1789. Robespierre felt that terror was a justifiable means to oust those who opposed his rule. The first true recording of the word was in the Académie Française in 1798, where it was listed as a ‘system or rule of terror’. However, the origins of terrorism can be traced back to early recorded history when it was described as a group of people who attempted to scare, or rather terrorize, people into their own religious way of life.
Two early terrorist groups were the Zealots and the Sicarii. The Zealots were a group of Jewish men who quite openly attacked Roman and Greek authorities in an effort to get the message over that they were not wanted as ruling bodies. The second group were the Sicarii, also Jews, but they resorted to murdering fellow Jews who had slipped from their religious faiths.
Another fanatical group who were motivated by political/religious fervour were the Assassins. Having been suppressed by the Mongols in the 13th century, the Assassin leaders, realizing that their band of men were too small to go into battle, chose to use terror to enable them to maintain their religious autonomy by instilling fear into their enemies.
The true concept of the structured use of terrorism came to the fore in the 1870s, with the activities of the Russian revolutionaries. Characters of note are Nechayev (also Nechaev), a Russian revolutionary figure associated with the Nihilist movement and anarchism and known for his single-minded pursuit of revolution by any means necessary, including political violence. Mikhail Bakunin was one of the intellectual founding fathers of Anarchism and was often thought of as Marx’s historical rival. A special place in the history of Russian terrorism belongs to a small band of revolutionaries known as Narodnaya Volya (‘The People’s Will’) who used the word ‘terrorism’ proudly. They developed certain ideals that were to become the hallmark of subsequent terrorism in many other countries.
Terrorism, as we know it today, possibly dates back to the mid-19th century when an Italian revolutionary, Carlo Pisacane, conjectured that terrorism could deliver a message to an audience and draw attention to, and support for, a cause. But one thing is for certain, since the horrific events of September 11, 2001, terrorism is now on the minds of many people who previously had possibly never given it a second thought.
We must try to find ways to starve the terrorist
and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on
which they depend.
Margaret Thatcher
Examples of early modern terrorism are the Ku Klux Klan, who formed after the American Civil War in 1865 with the main aim of resisting reconstruction. Another band of terrorists were the Young Bosnians who had Archduke Franz Ferdinand assassinated in 1914, which ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I.
It probably wasn’t until the 1960s that terrorism as we know it today came into prominence, with the formation of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) and the IRA (Irish Republican Army). These groups, and others like them, used violence against civilian populations in an effort to effect change for either religious or ideological reasons. One memorable example is ‘Bloody Friday’, the name given to July 21, 1972, due to bombings by the Provisional Irish Republican Army in and around Belfast, Northern Ireland, aimed at causing economic damage. A total of 22 bombs were planted and, in the resulting explosions, nine people were killed and a further 130 seriously injured.
The success of the Irish terrorist activities caught the eye of other nations, and realizing that it could have a very strong impact on a variety of issues, they started to fund terrorist groups from within their own governments. Syria, Libya and Iran were just a few of the countries who were prepared to sponsor terrorism. Of course very few people, apart from the Russian Tsar killers, would actually call themselves terrorists, but there are many common denominators in their so-called organizations. Most claim that their actions are as a direct result of an upsurge of public feeling, and for some naive reason, they believe that the use of violence or bullying will somehow transform the political scene in a favourable way. Possibly one of the most horrifying aspects of terrorism today is the fact that innocent civilians are becoming entangled in the web of violence. Hopefully it is the strong revulsion of the ordinary person against acts of terrorism that will eventually be the terrorists’ downfall.
As there are common factors, it is possible to put some sort of definition to the word terrorism. The definition according to the Oxford Dictionary is:
terrorism [noun] the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
There are definitely three key elements to terrorism – violence, fear and intimidation – and each of these elements produces terror in its victim. The statement, ‘One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’, has become not only a common phrase, but also one of the most difficult obstacles in coping with terrorism. Other organizations have their own interpretations of terrorism. Firstly, the United States Department of Defence defines terrorism as:
The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious or ideological.
The FBI’s definition of terrorism is:
Terrorism is the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
The US Department of States defines it as:
Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
Finally the British Government’s definition in 1974 was:
. . . the use of violence for political ends, and includes any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear.
Whatever definition we put to the atrocities of terrorist acts, whether it be those of an individual or a group of terrorists, the results are the same: terrorism is offensive and must end. The Terrorism Research Centre, Inc., which was formed in 1996, hit the nail on the head by saying, ‘Terrorism is a criminal act
that influences an audience beyond the immediate victim’.
During the 1960s the UN General Assembly tried to find some form of prohibition on terrorist activities, but their progress was slow because some states felt that terrorism in response to real grievances was justified. The UN was therefore limited in its power, but it drew up a series of 12 inadequate international conventions between 1963 and 1999. It only succeeded in passing a law to prohibit the hijacking of aircraft and the taking of diplomatic hostages.
Terrorists always plan their attacks to obtain the greatest publicity, choosing targets that typify what they themselves oppose. How effective the attack is relies not in the act itself, but in the public’s, or indeed the government’s, reaction to it. As an example the Black September Organization killed 11 Israelis at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, making the Israelis the immediate victims. The true target, however, was the estimated one billion people watching the televised event. As the 1990s progressed and concern about terrorism increased, the United States and several other nations became involved in a ‘War on Terror’, which has subsequently sent military units into Afghanistan in an effort to uncover al-Qaeda, and a large coalition force into Iraq to overthrow supporters of Sadaam Hussein. President George W. Bush announced to the United States in 2001 that he would be ‘resolute in his determination to wipe out terrorism’ – and yet it is more evident today than at any other time in recorded history.
Terry Waite, CBE, a British humanitarian and author, is best remembered for his work as a hostage negotiator and was himself held hostage in Lebanon for 1,760 days before being released on November 18, 1991.
The terrible thing about terrorism is that ultimately it destroys those who practise it. Slowly but surely, as they try to extinguish life in others, the light within them dies.
Terry Waite
Part One: Early Terrorism
Jing Ke, The Master Assassin
The reason why China suffers bitterly from endless wars is because of the existence of feudal lords and kings.
Qin Shi Huangdi
Qin Shi Huangdi was the founder of the Qin dynasty and was renowned for being a violent and brutal man. He became the first emperor of unified China in 221 BC and, at the time when he assumed power, the country had been in turmoil for over 200 years. This period of history became known as the Warring States Period. Before this time China was divided into numerous small kingdoms, or fiefdoms, but during the Warring States period seven dominant kingdoms emerged – Qin, Yan, Qi, Qu, Yan, Han, Zhao and Wei – of these Qin was the most powerful.
After such a violent and tumultuous period, the people were ready to accept Huangdi’s vision of a unified China with open arms. But their excitement was to be short-lived because the emperor not only used violence in his drive to unify China, but he also resorted to the slaughter of thousands of innocent people who he felt were not true to his cause.
The Kingdom of Zhao plays a very significant role in the life of the emperor, as this is where the King of Qin was raised and where he first met his life-long lover and confidante, Lady Zhao. Lady Zhao was a commoner and a servant to the emperor’s family. She was a simple, but elegant woman, and possibly the only person who shared the emperor’s vision. When Lady Zhao heard of the emperor’s dream of a unified China she decided to sacrifice her dream of leaving the Qin palace and returning to her homeland in order to support her lover. But despite her loyalty, ironically, it was the emperor’s brutal destruction of Zhao and the murdering of the children of Zhao that destroyed their relationship. The killing of the Zhao children is testimony of both the emperor’s brutality and his inability to keep his promise to the one person he truly loved.
At the commencement of his rule, the emperor’s vision for a unified China was genuine, wishing to bring an end to war and build one big empire where everyone spoke the same language and used the same currency. To avoid the anarchy of the Warring States Period, Qin Shi Huangdi and his prime minister, Li Si, completely abolished feudalism. They divided the empire into 36 provinces to be run by three governors – one civilian, one military, one moderator – all of whom could be dismissed by the emperor at any time. The emperor ordered that all members of the former royal houses of the conquered states to move to Xianyang (the capital of Qin) so that they could be kept under tight surveillance for rebellious activities. Huangdi also developed an extensive network of roads and canals, which provided easy access to the various provinces in the hope of promoting trade to his new empire. These also meant that there was an easy route if he needed to send his military section to any rebellious provinces too.
During his reign the Chinese script was unified. The new script was developed by Li Si, which he called the ‘small seal script’. This was based on the script already used in the Qin State, and the emperor ordered that the new script was made mandatory, thus abolishing any previous scripts. Edicts written in this new script were carved on the walls of the sacred mountains that surrounded China, making sure that his people followed his law.
Qin Shi Huangdi continued to expand his military power, and he fought neighbouring nomadic tribes to the north and northwest in a constant effort to increase his empire. Although his army managed to subdue the tribes, the battles were inconclusive and to prevent the Xiongnu from encroaching on the northern frontier any further, Huangdi ordered the construction of an enormous, defensive wall. This new wall linked several walls that were already in existence during the time of the Warring States. The construction of the new wall caused the death of thousands of men, and it was the forerunner of the present Great Wall of China. In order to build the great wall, the roads and the canals, Huangdi had to force peasants to do manual labour, and he believed that all his subjects should suffer in order that he live in relative peace. He suppressed freedom of thought and burned all Confucian literature, and through his constant cruelty and lack of compassion for his people Qin Shi Huangdi soon made many enemies.
JING KE
Qin Shi Huangdi had by this time conquered the states of Han and Zhao and was now threatening the state of Yan, to the northwest of his Empire, along the coast. Prince Dan, who was the son of the King of Yan, felt that their military were not strong enough to defend the state, and decided the best way to solve the problem was to assassinate the Emperor Huangdi. He already held a grudge against the emperor, because he had been captured by him and held prisoner in the Qin province for five years before be managed to escape.
About this time, Prince Dan befriended a young man by the name of Jing Ke, who was a native of the province of Wei but had journeyed to Yan. In Yan he had formed a good reputation as he was always prepared to assist anyone in need and was well accepted by the local people. Jing Ke and Prince Dan got on well right from their first meeting, and the Prince soon decided that it was this young man who should carry out the assassination of his arch rival. In an effort to win Jing Ke over, the prince had a luxurious palace built for him and made sure that he had everything he wanted. The prince visited him every day and made sure that his favourite chariot was always available to him. The prince even had his favourite horse slaughtered and the liver cooked for Jing Ke, as it was one of his favourite dishes. All this attention worked, and Jing Ke felt that he would be willing to do anything for his friend.
Meanwhile, the Qin troops were starting to mass along the southern border of the Yan state. rince Dan went to see his friend Jing Ke and told him of his fears that the state of Yan would soon be overthrown. Tentatively he suggested to Jing Ke that he felt the only way to save his state was to kill the emperor of Qin. To his surprise Jing Ke replied that he had already been thinking about doing the same thing, but felt that it would be very hard to gain access to the emperor. He asked the prince for two things – a map of the Dukang district, an area which Huangdi longed to possess, and the head of a man named Yan Yuqi. Apparently Yuqi had defected from Qin to Yan and was on the emperor’s most wanted list. Jing Ke felt that if he offered the emperor these two items he would most certain
ly be granted an audience.
While the Prince prepared the map, Jing Ke himself went to see Yan Yuqi and told him of the assassination plot. As a loyal subject Yuqi was willing to sacrifice himself to save Yan and took a knife to his own throat. Prince Dan gave his friend a dagger with a poisoned blade and assigned another well-known warrior, Qin Quyang to accompany him on his mission.
When the pair arrived in the State of Qin it wasn’t long before the news got to the emperor and they were offered an audience. However, when they actually confronted Huangdi, Jing Ke lost his nerve and his hands started to tremble uncontrollably. This aroused the emperor’s suspicion, but Jing Ke recovered his composure and told him that it was just the fact that he was totally overawed to be in the presence of such a famous emperor.
Carrying a wooden box containing the severed head and a map scroll with the poisoned dagger rolled up inside it, Jing Ke approached the emperor. As he approached him and unrolled the map, the dagger was revealed and caused the emperor to take a step back. However, Jing Ke lunged at him, grabbed his sleeve and pointed the dagger towards him. The emperor moved swiftly and as he jerked away the dagger only managed to make a tear in the sleeve of his garments. The emperor hid behind a pillar with Jing Ke still determined to complete his task.
