By Fareed Khan
October 23, 2014 -- I generally agree with Glenn Greenwald. He's one of the most incisive
and intelligent journalists to write on issues of international politics
and public policy. His reports last year on the Edward Snowden NSA leaks were the definitive stories about US abuses of their national
security apparatus to spy on ordinary Americans and on US allies.
But on the issue of terror attacks in Canada I couldn't disagree with him more (for the most part)!
But on the issue of terror attacks in Canada I couldn't disagree with him more (for the most part)!
He obviously hasn't followed the political nuances and internal debates of what has occurred in Canada over the past 13 years when it comes to terrorism and related issues and so I question his logic since he couldn't have read up on more than a decade of Canadian political dialogue and the public debates they generated in the day or so since he wrote his article. In addition, his linking Canada's role in Afghanistan to the attack on the Canadian soldier outside Montreal earlier this week is a total disconnect since one has nothing to do with the other. (NOTE: His article was written before the Ottawa attack.)
Related:
* Terrorism rocks Ottawa
* Ottawa terrorist attack prompts worldwide step-up in security from Australia to England to Iqaluit
* Day of chaos in the capital leaves soldier and terrorist dead
* Terror strikes Canadian capital as attacks leave one soldier and one suspect dead
* Ottawa shooting: Harper, Mulcair, Trudeau speak about attack
* Ottawa shooting: How the terror unfolded
* Quebec hit-and-run attacker 'radicalized,' PMO says
* Ottawa terror payback for Harper's war in Iraq?
Where I do agree however is his take on the use of the word "terrorism" by governments (particularly the US) to define acts of violent protest that governments disagree with. The US has used the word terrorism to lable many actions against American policy over the past two decades. And since 9/11 Russia, China, France, Israel and others have applied the terrorism lable to any acts of political protest or political violence that are in opposition to the policies of those nations. In Canada the Conservative government of Stephen Harper has used the terror lable to try and silence environmental groups that have opposed the Conservative governments pro-oil and anti-environment policies.
However, where we don't see the word terrorism used (and it should be) is when the governments of the US, the UK, France, Israel, India and many others take military actions which target supposed terrorists but instead end up killing and maiming mostly innocent people far away from the centres of power. And while most will agree that the attack in Ottawa yesterday was an act of terror, we should also then agree that any act of brutal violence (whether perpetrated by an individual or by a government) are acts that terrorize people.
With this in mind one has to question how acts of terrorism are labled. For example, why was the Ottawa attack considered an act of terror while the June 2014 shootings of five RCMP officers (three of whom died) which terrorized Moncton, New Brunswick were not. Certainly that entire community was terrorized as a killer roamed the streets targeting RCMP officers the same way that the Ottawa shooter targeted the Canadian Forces members at the National War Memorial and Parliament. There was a similar incident in May 2014 which terrorized the community of St. Paul, Alberta where an individual once again tried to kill RCMP officers. And then there was the Mayerthorpe, Alberta incident where four RCMP officers were ambushed and killed. That incident certainly terrorized and traumatized a community and the nation.
So if the definition of terrorism isn't locked down, as Greenwald says, and is used by politicians selectively then maybe it should be defined more accurately by those who make a career of studying and writing about it. Or better yet, why don't we just define it as any deliberate violent act that creates the feeling of terror in people. That way school shootings and gun violence in the US would also be considered acts of terror and maybe the American government would finally do something about that (but I digress).
We should also keep in mind that when US drones and fighter jets drop bombs and missiles from 20,000 feet on unsuspecting villagers in Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, with the goal of killing terrorists, and when a large number of the dead and dismembered are innocent civilians, that too is terrorism, and more so it is by international definition a war crime. Studies and interviews done with those who live in those affected areas have certainly demonstrated that those people feel terrorized everyday, but the (state) terrorism lable is never applied to those circumstances.
The only difference between the incidents mentioned above and what happened in Ottawa yesterday is that drone attacks and bombings by fighter jets always happen out of sight of the western media. And since we didn't see it happen on TV or watch the progress of the event on social media it's as if it never happened and, therefore, it wasn't an act of terror. But if you talk to the survivors of those attack I will bet that they would think differently. And if we as Canadian citizens and our government are truly committed to fighting and eliminating terrorism then we should be thinking and acting differently also.
© Fareed Khan. © The View From Here. All Rights Reserved.
