Terrorism and Hama

          Last week in class we had a discussion on terrorism. This is often a subject that can really spark anger in me because I get angry at the thought of any group killing innocent civilians and trying to intimidate another group through terror. I thought it was good that we tried to define terror in class and that we were able to compare our definitions. It really stimulated my thoughts on the subject. My definition was a small group usually going after civilians by a violent act in order to intimidate another group or to make a political statement. According to a documentary I watched for my Middle Eastern Geography class one of Al-Qaeda main goals for the September 11 attacks was to unify and call to action Muslims against the West. I supposed it would make the United States appear weak and not impenetrable. I suppose it did make a political statement but for the most part I do not think it unified Muslims against the West. In my opinion September 11 is the ultimate example of terrorism for me.  This is probably due to my bias as an American and the extensive use of the term after the attacks, especially by Bush. But what else counts as terrorism?

            One thing we did not really cover in my Political Geography class but was extensively covered in my Middle Eastern Geography class was the idea that terrorism is a one-time event. It is a single event in time. I suppose this differentiates it from war which is multiple events over a period of time. If this is true I can see how it would be an important distinction in geography because geography is the study of space and time is a form of space. With this distinction in mind I analyzed the Hama massacre of 1982 in Syria.

            For my last test in Middle Eastern Geography we had to read an article called Hama Rules. The article was by Thomas Friedman who wrote Hot, Flat and Crowded which, interestingly enough, is one of the books I am writing on in this class. I do not know how Friedman made the switch from writing about the Middle East to writing about Climate Change or “Global Weirding” as he calls it, but he seemed knowledgeable enough on the subject. The article was not only on the event itself but on the political implications behind it. According to the article, President Assad mowed down an entire town to quell a revolt by the Muslim Brotherhood. Assad's brother, Rifaat, Commanding General at the time bragged that they killed 38,000 people including men, women, and children. Looking at our definitions in class this event definitely seems like a terrorist attack. It was a group using terror systematically to intimidate a group and serve a political agenda. But I question whether it was a single isolated event or whether it was just part of a war. According to my Middle Eastern class and the stipulation about being a single event in time I am not sure that this would be terrorism. The civil war in Syria has been going on for years. This brings up the argument of whether acts of violence in wars are considered terrorism or just part of the war. This causes me to think that terrorism is really defined according to which group is defining the incident. Assad may have considered it a price of war which may be different to terrorism. To the Muslim brotherhood this would definitely be terrorism. It depends on how you define terrorism and which group is presenting the information.

            Ultimately, I do not think that the specific definition of terrorism really matters. What matters is that groups or countries should be held accountable for their actions and analyze the moral implications of their actions before they carry out their actions. Whether terrorism or just an act of war, people should know that it is wrong to murder civilians and should count the cost.