Archbishop: terrorists can have "serious moral goals"
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has urged the US to recognise that terrorists can "have serious moral goals."
Now, if we step back, take a deep breath, and try to be charitable to the Archbishop, we can, I guess, agree that it is in theory possible in theory to fight for a noble goal (ie, democracy, human rights, independence for an oppressed people) by using unacceptable means.
That said, it is obvious that people who kill and maim innocents for whatever goal they pursue, have a serious ethical lapse. Thus, having a perverted idea of ethics to begin with, supporting random violence, it would be nothing short of a paradox if they actually wanted a peaceful, democratic world with respect for the same human rights they actively deny during the struggle.
He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality. "It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable."
He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa'eda, America "loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality."
As we can see, once the Archbishop gets concrete, his statements don't deserve such a charitable interpretation.
The al-Qaeda network is a group of terrorists who fight for everything but moral goals. True, many of the people they hate and fight against, like the rulers in Saudi-Arabia, are thugs. But Bin Laden does not fight for human rights, he fight to replace one corrupt ruling elite with a ghastly religious dictature, like the Taliban. These terrorists fight for a system that stands for cruel oppression of women and extermination of religious and political dissenters.
Historically, this has also been true. The terrorists in Europe in the 1970s were fighting for a communist revolution and establishment of the most blood thirsty form of regime known to humanity. Somewhat less brutal, relatively speaking, the IRA and its offshots have fought for reunification of Ireland, contrary to the will of the majority of people in the north. Countless armed resistance movements, once they depart from armed struggle and move into terrorism (that is, targeting non-relevant targets), have also revealed themselves to have everything but noble goals.
It may be fashionable among leftists in the west to argue that Palestnian terrorists (and I would guess this is what the archbishop has in mind) fight for the liberation of occupied territories. That is not true. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the other groups who regularly blow up civilians, including children, fight for the total extermination of the state of Israel. The moderate elements who also oppose Israeli occupation do renounce random violence (though it is sometimes hard to see who does so with honesty).
I am more worried that the word "terrorist" is being used too widely. For example, car-bomb attacks on US troops in Iraq is called "terrorism" but that doesn't do justice to the term. In all honesty, attacks on military targets is legitimate for an armed resistance. The fact that they fight for everything but a noble cause, namely restoration of Saddam to power and/or establishment of an Islamist dictature, is another matter entirely. There is a clear distinction between attacking soldiers and political targets, and attacking more or less random civilians causing death and mayhem to spread fear and get publicity. The latter is clearly terrorism.
I read some time ago, and the source has escaped me, that terrorism is demanding the unreasonable, and demanding it at gunpoint. That is not a perfect definition, but it will do. Unreasonable and violent people are very unlikely to want reasonable solutions.
6:39:43 PM 
|
