Opinion » Columnists
Author`s name Ольга Савка

Fallacies about international terrorism

Like all politicians, those who took part in the attack against Afghanistan and Iraq, try to justify what they did by saying that now is the time to support what they are doing

There are two theories being bandied around nowadays - that terrorist acts against civilians are justifiable in response to invasion of Moslem lands by hostile forces and that such invasions have nothing to do with international terrorism. Both are wrong.

Like everyone with a cause, the terrorists try to justify their actions with the warped argument that it is justified and justifiable to murder innocent people in defence of their cause - in the case of Islamist fundamentalists, the stationing of hostile foreign troops on Moslem soil.

To begin with, there is nothing in the Qu'ran or indeed in the teachings (Sunnah) of Islam which justify international terrorism, or even which allude to it, making the practice entirely and wholly blasphemous - indeed, instead of defending Islam, these fanatics are damaging their faith. The weak-minded operationals who have allowed themselves into being brainwashed into blowing themselves up are in fact traitors to the religion and precepts they believe they are defending, pawns in a dubious political agenda which has more to do with making money and leading a comfortable lifestyle, like most criminal gangs, which after all is what terrorist groups are in essence.

Like all politicians, those who took part in the attack against Afghanistan and later, against Iraq, try to justify what they did by saying that now is the time to support what they are doing, since they are trying to support the fledgling democracies in both countries.

This approach is as misguided and wrong as the one adopted by the terrorists. If we are to consider Afghanistan, we have to go back to the root of the problem, when the USA started to aid, train and equip the Mujaheddin terrorists who were unleashed against the progressive government of Dr. Najibullah, who was forced to turn to the Soviet Armed Forces for support. Just after a decade after these forces withdrew, Washington learnt what happens when you spit into the wind.

While it is true that the wave of attacks unleashed by Osama Bin Laden against US interests is totally unacceptable, this came in response to a previous aggression, which was the First Gulf War, provoked by Kuwait cross-drilling into Iraq's oil. At whose behest?

Therefore we see that the old saying "It takes two to tango", is right. There are two players in the game and in deciding to opt for military action not once, but on three occasions, the USA and its closest allies decided and accepted to become players.

What we see today is a perverse downward spiral of events with both sides raising the stakes constantly, culminating in the frightening scenario of European and North American cities being targeted by fanatics, not to mention the cities of Russia, who know only too well the ugly face of Islamic fundamentalism. Russia, however, opted for debate and dialogue and using the rule of international law in the case of Iraq and its role in Chechnya is justified by the fact that Chechnya is an integral part of the Russian Federation, at the request of the Chechen population.

Iraq is neither one of the United States of America nor is it a British colony. Therefore the stationing of troops in this country and the military intervention which led to the slaughter of between 75,000 and 100,000 people, are unjustifiably wrong and the fact that democracies are now being set up in Afghanistan and Iraq does not right the wrong.

On this note, how democratic is an Afghani government based on former war lords and drugs barons, whose able leadership has allowed the production of opium to once again increase? On the note of democracy, how democratic is the reactionary government of Iraq, which is formed by right-wing political islamists?

However, the way out is not to blow up innocent civilians in London or anywhere else. Now that the Taleban government and the government of Saddam Hussein have been removed, there has to be consensus in the international community as to how to move forward, for it is impossible now to simply pull out of the regions which have been destabilized.

Before the situation becomes any worse, it is time for the international community to come together, through the United Nations, and help the Americans and British, and a handful of others, extricate themselves from the mess they created by going too far, too fast and not thinking through what was blatantly obvious, as we wrote in these pages six months before the invasion of Iraq.

Criticising Washington and London for the war does not mean that it is justifiable to support the terrorists, whose only agenda is terror, against Christians, against Moslems, against old folk, against women, against children. Nothing can justify that. Two wrongs do not make a right.

It is time for right and reason to come to the fore, because it is unacceptable that people cannot go about their daily lives for fear of being blasted into pieces, be it in New York, or London, or Madrid, or Baghdad, or wherever else. This is not freedom, as only too many thousands of people whose governments got too close to George Bush are beginning to understand.

The United States' Head of Diplomacy, or Secretary of State, is an anachronistic, incompetent, meddling, intrusive, insolent and arrogant, rude individual, a brash, foul-mouthed upstart, a conceited, self-important guttersnipe and an insult to the international community, as fit for the job as a pedophile janitor in a grade school.

Tillerson must go!