Resources
AlterNet
American Friends
Common Dreams
disinformation
FAIR
Hudson Mohawk Indy Media
Inst. for Global Communication
MediaWorkers Against War
MoveOn.org
Peaceful Justice
Protest.Net Calendar
truthout
yes!

Ashokan Reservoir News

Alternative Energy Sites

Islamic History Sourcebook

International News
News Sources Guide
Middle East Times
BBC News
The Guardian
Frontier Post Pakistan
Jordan Times
Jerusalem Post
The Nation
ChristianScienceMonitor

Local Media
WAMC
WKZE
WDST
WRPI
ALBANY Times Union
ALBANY Metroland
KINGSTON Daily Freeman
WOODSTOCK Times
POUGHKEEPSIE Journal
MIDDLETOWN Times Herald Record
Regional Network News KINGSTON

Charitable Organizations

Commentary

On Innocence
© Kristin Young Christman
October 2, 2001
Albany, NY

Plans to "surgically remove" the enemy terrorists rather than kill the innocent sounds tidy on paper but could be sloppy in practice. Unless we have a precise definition of the enemy and a precise definition of the innocent, our noble plans for "good to prevail over evil" may easily escalate both war and terrorism.

Our definition of the enemy is not helped by the fact that the term "terrorist"is used opportunistically. A nation will describe enemy violent groups as terrorists, but it will create positive labels for those violent groups that it supports.

The term is also vague in that it defines a killer based only on his action. We should further define terrorists according to their motives. Ascribing vague motives such as fighting for or against freedom is simplistic. While clever for rallying a crowd, simplicity in labeling people and their motives can lead to unintelligent policy planning, immoral actions, stereotyping and bigotry at home, and difficulty in achieving peace in the end.

An impartial usage of the term terrorist and a thorough analysis of terrorist motives is necessary to ensure international cooperation and to formulate intelligent policies that will achieve our mission of eradicating terrorism.

If a person kills out of hunger for power, or out of hatred for a culture that has not harmed him, let’s call him an aggressive terrorist. If a person kills out of despair because he believes, correctly or not, that the enemy is directly or indirectly responsible for the violence and poverty within which his people live, let’s call him a defensive terrorist.

While a violent/punitive response may be the most effective in destroying aggressive terrorists, it will only increase terrorism if used against defensive terrorists because it will aggravate the very conditions that produce defensive terrorists. To reduce the number of defensive terrorists, we must focus not on eliminating the defensive terrorists themselves but the conditions that breed them. We must develop foreign policy that eliminates violence, injustice, and poverty in these people’ lives as well as the ignorance that leads them to make unfair accusations.

Again, this idea sounds neat on paper, but dividing terrorists into aggressive and defensive is also sloppy business. And what type of terrorist is a man who kills because he hates a culture that has not harmed him but he believes, correctly or not, has harmed others in another nation?

And how innocent is a man who gives refuge to his long-time neighbor fleeing from the US military, a man with whom he doesn’t share the same views? And how innocent is a man who kills a US soldier who bombed a Mid-Eastern hotel which contained one terrorist and several innocent people, including the man’s parents? Obviously, people do not divide easily into good and evil. Obviously, it is not easy to tell when everyone has taken his fair turn at revenge.

We should not be tempted into thinking that violence can be contained within the neat boundaries of justice and morality. There are no neat boundaries. Even if, as some say, "justice and morality be damned," undue US-led violence is capable of undermining our mission. We must keep the number killed to a specified numerical minimum. We should provide a 21st century approach to a 21st century campaign and focus our efforts on policies that will change peoples’ minds, not destroy their lives.

To comment or reply to this article, contact the webmaster.
On Innocence / Unraveling anti-Americanism / Top Twenty Questions