Analysis of Recent Media Comments on Terrorism and U.S.-Muslim Relations

In my recent post, "Terrorism" vs. "Militancy," I defined the word terrorism and explained the difference between it and general militancy. Subsequently, there were numerous comments expressed in the media that described certain acts of domestic political violence as "terrorism." I had kept my post general, but in this one I shall be more specific in order to refute the argument that such acts are terrorism.

Anti-abortion militants target the abortion industry specifically because their goal is to limit abortion by targeting abortion centers (which is sabotage) or those that perform abortions. They do not target the general populace. Therefore, they do not terrorize the populace in order to intimidate it into submitting to their demands. Similarly, animal rights militants specifically target research laboratories where animal experiments are performed, not the general populace. Animal rights militants are saboteurs. Environmental militants also specifically target only certain targets they oppose, usually with sabotage. They, too, do not target the general populace. Environmental militant Ted Kazinski, the "Unabomber," only crossed over into terrorism once he threatened to blow up a civilian airliner, which terrorized innocent civilians instead of only government officials or those whom he opposed. Anti-government militants target the government -- not civilians -- which does not terrorize the populace. Such militancy crosses over into terrorism only if the government target is filled with innocent civilians (which is why bombings of embassies are acts of terrorism).

As noted in my earlier post, terrorism is particularly evil because it targets innocent civilians. The word terrorism should not be diluted by applying it to all forms of political violence, which is usually done in order to discredit the cause in support of which the militant acts were performed. Whether the cause is just or not is irrelevant as to whether the militancy constitutes terrorism. Unless the distinction between terrorism and other forms of militancy is learned, terrorism will never be eliminated.

In analyzing President Barak Obama's address to the Muslim world, there was some media commentary that he had broken from the "arrogance" and "bullying" of the administration of President George W. Bush. I submit that Bush was neither the one who was arrogant or the bully in regard to relations between the United States and the Muslim world.

It was Bill Cinton who was arrogant during his presidency when he attempted to force peace upon the Israelis and Palestinians when Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat was not ready to make peace. The result of Clinton's "peace process" was a Palestinian uprising that killed thousands of people, including many civilians, that lasted for years. Clinton had wanted the photo opportunity of the Israeli and Palestinian leaders shaking hands with each other with him in the middle, as well as the legacy of being a peacemaker. He should have pursued a policy of justice instead. Bush pursued a policy of humility and did not try to force peace on parties that were unwilling to make it. For doing so, liberals criticized him for failing to engage as actively as Clinton in peace talks because his humility did not match their characterization of him as arrogant. Bush's policies did not lead to any bloody Palestinian uprising and his overthrow of Saddam Hussein, who had been financing Palestinian suicide bombings, together with Israeli security measures, led to relative peace, with the exception of the 2008 war between Israel and Hamas. Israel even withdrew permanently from the Gaza Strip, which represented more progress than Clinton had made. It is difficult for liberals to accept the fact that phony peace negotiations cause more bloodshed than all-out war and tend to prolong conflicts.

As for the charge of bullying made against Bush, it was Saddam Hussein who was the bully, not Bush. Hussein had invaded and attempted to annex all or part of two of his neighbors, which gave him the unique distinction of being the only serial aggressor since the Second World War. I should note that the distinction that Obama and most other liberals as well as isolationists who opposed the Liberation of Iraq, make between Afghanistan and Iraq is not one made by militant Muslims. While Obama and some of the other critics see Afghanistan as a just war and Iraq as unnecessary, militant Muslims accuse the United States of bullying for overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the al-Qaeda terrorists responsible for September 11. Thus, the concern that liberating Iraq angered Muslims, which supposedly proves that Iraq was an unnecessary war, is inconsistent because even liberating Afghanistan had angered them. Liberating tens of millions of Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq from brutal tyrants who sponsored terrorism is the antithesis of bullying.