16 September 2004
Varieties of Terrorism
extended to the experience of the terrorized
- / -
Introduction
Engendering terror through intimidation
Broadening the taxonomy of terrorism
Questions in distinguishing terror and terrorism
Distinguishing degrees of fear and terror
Training for intimidation and terrorism
"Terrorism-alpha" vs "Terrorism-beta"
Conclusions
References
Introduction
This note endeavours to clarify the variety of ways in which terror is deliberately
caused or experienced. The purpose is to provide a reminder -- which should
not be necessary -- that the phenomenon of "terrorism" also exists
outside the specific domains in which "anti-terrorist" security measures
are taken. Ironically it could be argued that the official focus on the more
narrowly defined forms of "terrorism" is one of the most effective
means of obscuring other forms of terrorism to which far more people are exposed.
Typologies and taxonomies of "terrorism" seldom make any reference
to such other forms of terrorism and should therefore be considered incomplete
in the acknowledgement of the variety of ways in which people are intimidated.
It is worth recalling that the prime objective of "terrorism" is inducing
a climate of fear.
And yet it is precisely such other, more widespread, forms of "terrorism"
which are characteristic of any "breeding ground" for "terrorists"
in the narrower sense. It could be argued that many of these other varieties
of "terrorism" are not "serious", and some may even be understood
as negligible since they imply no threat of death. But the question is whether
they give rise to commensurate fear -- as perceived and experienced by those
exposed to such intimidation -- or whether such fear is to be devalued and demeaned
in comparison with that associated with the more narrowly defined forms of terrorism.
It is useful to reflect on how it is that the most powerful nations in modern
civilization have invested so much in countering the narrower form of terrorism,
whether in terms of funds, human resources or intelligence. And yet relatively
little is effectively invested in the response to the forms of terror that many
experience on a daily basis. It is almost as though resources are allocated
in highly visible response to an elusive enemy as a means of avoiding any response
to far more frequently experienced forms of terror in the daily lives of many.
The systematic counter-terrorist security measures might even be said to be
engendering more terror than those deliberately undertaking occasional conventional
"terrorist" actions.
It is also worth recalling that it is not only the prospect of physical violence
that causes fear but also various forms of contextual or structural violence.
Fear is an unpleasant feeling of perceived risk or danger, real or not. Fear
also could be described as a feeling of extreme dislike to some conditions/objects,
such as: fear of darkness, fear of ghosts, etc [more].
Inability to guarantee sufficient food or water, especially for vulnerable dependents,
may engender deep existential fear on a daily basis.
Engendering terror through intimidation
Nature-related terror
- Intimidation by natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes,
etc)
- Intimidation by wild animals (man-eaters, sharks, bears, snakes, etc)
- Intimidation of animals (abuse of work animals, cruelty to animals, vivisection,
torture, etc)
Contextually-induced terror
- Intimidation by accidents (explosions, traffic, etc)
- Intimidation by economic disaster (financial collapse, factory closure,
etc)
- Intimidation by doom-mongering (asteroids, aliens, epidemics, end-times
scenarios, nuclear winter, etc)
- Intimidation through display of force (weaponry, small arms, missiles, battleships,
etc)
- Intimidation through health threats, by physicians, pharmaceutical companies,
etc (obesity, smoking, diet, cancer, etc)
- Intimidation by withholding vital aid to those in need
- Intimidation by limiting access to basic needs (food, shelter, medicine,
etc)
- Intimidation by threat of change to status quo
Politically-induced terror
- Intimidation by "terrorists" (suicide bombing, kidnappings, etc)
- Intimidation by liberation movements
- Intimidation by political activists (animal rights, etc)
Militarily-induced terror
- Intimidation by "legitimate" conventional warfare (bombing, fire-bombing,
search and destroy, etc)
- Intimidation by the threat of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear warfare,
etc)
- Intimidation by targeted assassination
Institutionally-induced terror (through abuse of power and authority)
- State-sponsored terror (rogue states, etc)
- Intimidation by tyrants and dictators
- Intimidation by military superiors
- Intimidation by security personnel (prisons, secret services, security "contractors",
etc)
- Intimidation by government officials (bureaucratic harassment, taxation,
etc)
- Intimidation by secret services (and rogue agencies)
- Intimidation by corporate executives (dirty tricks, etc)
- Financial intimidation (bankers, loan sharks, etc)
- Intimidation by priests and priesthoods (hell fire, mortal soul, fear of
God, sexual abuse, etc)
- Intimidation by incompetent or irresponsible professionals
- Intimidation by scientists and physicians (human experimentation relating
to tolerance of radioactivity, biochemical agents, etc)
- Intimidation by service and shop personnel
- Intimidation by teachers
- Intimidation by legal harassment
Socially-induced terror (groups)
- Intimidation by street gangs (bullying, torture, etc)
- Intimidation by labour unions
- Intimidation of proprietors (racketeering, etc)
- Intimidation by organized crime
- Intimidation by ethnic groups
- Intimidation by opposite gender
- Intimidation by cults
- Intimidation by community or peer sanction (ostracism, shunning, etc)
Socially-induced terror (individuals)
- Intimidation by kidnappers
- Intimidation through death threats
- Intimidation by stalkers
- Intimidation by students
- Intimidation by the physically advantaged of the physically or mentally
disadvantaged (carers, hospices, etc)
- Intimidation by the mentally advantaged of the physically or mentally disadvantaged
(carers, hospices, etc)
- Intimidation of pedestrians by drivers
- Intimidation by landlords (bullying, loss of tenancy, etc)
- Intimidation by neighbours
- Intimidation by competitors and rivals
- Intimidation by criminals (serial killers, sociopaths, etc)
- Intimidation by street violence (muggers, street gangs, etc)
Peer-related terror
- Intimidation by fellow students (bullying, torture, hazing rituals, etc)
- Intimidation by drivers (tailgating, cutting in, etc)
- Intimidation by work colleagues (bullying, etc)
- Intimidation by fellow prisoners (rape, sex slavery, etc)
- Intimidation by military platoon mates (bullying, hazing rituals, etc)
Personal and domestic terror
- Sexual intimidation (rape, etc)
- Intimidation of servants (bullying, threat of job loss, threat of beating,
etc)
- Intimidation of spouse (bullying, domestic violence, etc)
- Intimidation by siblings (bullying, torture, etc)
- Intimidation by parents (child abuse, etc)
- Intimidation by in-laws (dowry-related, etc)
Subjectively-induced terror
- Intimidation through induced phobias:
- of the dark
- of being alone
- of open spaces (wilderness, etc)
- of insects
- etc [checklist]
- Intimidation by the media (horror movies, etc)
- Intimidation through hoaxes (duplicity, harassment, hazing, "only a
joke", etc)
- Intimidation by extraterrestrials (abductions, etc)
- Intimidation by beliefs in the supernatural (demons, evil spirits, evil
eye, ghosts, etc)
- Intimidation by witchdoctors
- Intimidation through superstition (inauspicious, etc)
- Intimidation by the unknown
- Intimidation by the prospect of:
- ageing (loss of looks, senility, dependency, etc)
- being forgotten
- being unrecognized
- being ignored
- being impotent
- Intimidation by alienation of affection
Broadening the taxonomy of terrorism
It may well be that a more appropriate approach to a framework for a taxonomy
of terrorism is a mix of the following:
Origins of European understandings of "fear": The work of
Jan Edward Garret (see Table 1) distinguishes varieties of fear in the classical
Greek and Roman literature that is basic to understanding of so many terms in
European languages. He notes the classical definition of fear as a disorder
arising from expectation of evil; a belief of threatening evil which seems to
the subject of it insupportable
Table 1: Varieties of Fear
The Passions
according to the Classical Stoa (2000)
Jan Edward Garret
|
| Variety of fear |
Definition |
Greek |
Latin |
| Sluggishness |
Sluggishness: fear of ensuing toil |
oknos |
pigritia |
| Shame |
Shame: fear of disgrace |
aischunê |
pudor |
| Fright |
Paralyzing fear which causes paleness, trembling
and chattering of teeth |
ekplêxis |
terror |
| Timidity |
Fear of approaching evil |
deima |
timor |
| Consternation |
Fear upsetting the mental balance |
- |
pavor |
| Pusillanimity |
Fear following upon the heels of fright |
agonia |
exanimatio |
| Bewilderment |
Lust for beholding someone who is not present |
thorubos |
conturbatio |
| Faintheartedness |
Lasting fear |
- |
formido |
Understanding of himsa in Sanskrit: The concept of ahimsa
is based on recognition of the forms of injury (himsa) to which any philosophy
of non-violence (ahimsa) must necessarily be attentive. It is notably
fundamental to the Jain religion but has been central to some understandings
of peace activism. In Table 2, a simplified version of the Jain approach to
himsa is presented.
|
|
Arambhaja or Arambhi Himsa,
(Occupational Injury) |
Udyami Himsa, (industrial injury) |
- Asi: through the profession of a soldier,
- Masi: through the profession of a writer,
- Krshi: through the profession of an agriculturist,
- Vanijya: through the profession of a trader,
- Silpa: through the profession of an artisan, and
- Vidya: through the profession of an intellectual.
|
Grharambhi Himsa
(domestic injury) |
Committed in the performance of necessary domestic acts, such as preparation
of food, keeping the house, body, clothes and other things clean, construction
of buildings, wells, gardens, and other structures, keeping cattle, etc.
|
| Virodhi Himsa |
Committed in defense of person and property, against thieves, robbers,
dacoits, assailants and enemies, in meeting their aggression, and in causing
the least possible injury, necessary in the circumstances, in which one
may find oneself. |
|
Anarambhaja or Anarambhi or Samkalpi Himsa
(Non-occupational or Intentional Injury)
|
. |
. |
Cross-cutting distinctions are made between
- Sthula Himsa vs Sukshma Himsa:
- Sthula Himsa: the destruction of the higher forms of life from dvindriyas,
i.e., two-sensed beings upwards
- Sukshma Himsa: taking of life in any form including even the killing
of ekendriyas, i.e., one sensed beings. (The lay Jain is also enjoined
to avoid the useless destruction of Sthavara-Jivas, i.e., immobile souls).
- Dravya vs Bhava: the absence of compassion shown when a man allows
himself to be carried away by anger. Hence a distinction has been made between
- Dravya Himsa, i.e., the actual hurt or injury and
- Bhava Himsa, i.e., the intention to hurt or injury to vitality.
- Bahya vs Antargata:
- Bahya i.e. external aspects: the external or actual acts of killing
or injury
- Antargata, i.e., internal aspects: the internal or intentional side
of committing of injury.
- Vyavahara vs Nischaya Naya points of view:
- Vyavahara Naya, i.e., the practical point of view: hurting of the
vitalities by passional vibrations, namely injury of any kind to the material
or conscious vitalities caused through passionate activity of mind, body
or speech
- Nischaya Naya, i.e., the real point of view: the intentional side
of injury, even when passions to hurt others arise in the mind.
Panetics: The systematic work of the International
Society for Panetics, founded by Taoist R G H Siu, is concerned with the
sensitivity and vigilance required of any ethical system. Its focus on suffering
and its infliction raises the question of the relationship between suffering
and the fear it engenders. This work has notably identified:
- Ways of inflicting suffering: Some 3,700 English terms relating to the notion
of "inflict" (R G H Siu. Less Suffering for Everybody, 1993;
Appendix B)
- Analysis of the infliction process (R G H Siu. Panetics and Dukkha: an
integrated study of the infliction of suffering and the reduction of infliction.
1993; Chapter 5) in which he distinguishes the following modulating factors
(relevant to any taxonomy) of terrorism:
- personality and psychological state
- institutional interests
- discipline
- rules, morality, and love
- justifications and rationalizations
- theories
- virtual presences
- public relations
- solace and explanation
|
- pursuit of happiness
- craving for money
- thirst for knowledge
- lust for power and urge to win
- duplicity
- irresponsibility and thoughtlessness
- incompetence
- strangers
- distance
|
- Contemporary case study: United States of America (R G H Siu. Panetics
and Dukkha: an integrated study of the infliction of suffering and the reduction
of infliction. 1993; Chapter 4) (see Table 5 below)
Varieties of love: The very extensive literature on the varieties of
love and loving (as the polar opposite of fear and terrifying) suggests that
the methodology employed in such studies might be used for a better understanding
of fear (cf Robert M. Young. Love:
from libido theory to object relations). This is especially the case
given the intimate relationship between love and fear in love-making (versus
rape, for example) and the recognized eroticism of torture -- as well as the
justifications advanced for responding to "terrorism" in the name
of a Christian-inspired civilization emphasizing "love". Just as Sanskrit
distinguishes some 80 terms for love, the point has been made by Stephen Post
(Unlimited
Love and Ultimate Reality, 2003) that:
The Greek' s were more careful to make linguistic distinctions. They had a
myriad of words for love: "eunoia" refers to good will or benevolence,
"physike" to kindness toward people of one's own race, "xenike"
to kindness toward guest's and strangers, "erotike" to sexual desire,
"eros" to impassioned attraction, "philia" to friendship, "storge"
to tenderness, and "agape" to a disinterested affection. Agape, divine
limitless love, would be taken up by emergent Christianity and identified
as the essential nature of God. This affectionate love for all humanity seems
to have at least some place in all major religious traditions of the world.
Metaphoric articulation of fear: Several authors have explored the consequences
of the creative and uncritical reframing of fear through metaphor.
- Susan Sontag (Illness
as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors, 2001)
- Robert L. Ivie (The ‘Other’ Within the Body Politic: Disease, Democracy,
and National Defense, 2000; Democracy, War, and Metaphors of Disease
in U.S. Political Culture, 1999; Constructing a Republic of Fear: Frightful
Metaphors in the Containment Rhetoric of Kennan, Truman, and Eisenhower,
1996; Metaphors of Fear and Their Cold War Legacy, 1993)
- Michael Benton (commenting
on Peter Linebaugh and Mark Rediker. The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves,
Commoners, and the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic, 2000)
states:
"The first narrative is that of the Atlantic ruling classes as they seek
to consolidate their control of this new Empire and create legitimizing myths
to justify their acts of "terror" used to pacify resistant populations-both
at home and abroad. The second narrative, which is more important to the authors,
is the alliances formed amongst multi-ethnic workers in response to the brutal
conditions of this new empire. These resistances are the main theme of Many-Headed
Hydra. Linebaugh and Rediker explore the various resistances to these
global colonizing forces through the metaphors of "terror" that the dominant
society used to demonize alternative lifestyles. Prominent amongst these was
the image of the multi-headed Hydra that the mythic Hercules had to destroy
as one of his heroic labors. The mythical Hydra would sprout two heads in
the place of every head that was lopped off by Hercules. In a final desperate
move Hercules used a torch to sear the severed necks in order to prevent new
heads from sprouting. It was the legitimizing myths of political theorists,
like Francis Bacon, that supported the representation of marginalized peoples
as monstrous forces that threatened the ordered progression of society".
- George Lakoff (Metaphors
of Terror, 2001; Don't
Think of an Elephant Know Your Values and Frame the Debate, 2004)
- However it is only in a commentary on a classical text from Judaism that
metaphor seems to be used to distinguish between the varieties of fear. Rabbinical
commentary (see Table 3) distinguishes five instances in which the weak cast
fear over the strong: "The fear of the lion for the mafgia, the fear
of an elephant for a mosquito, the fear of a scorpion for a spider, the fear
of the eagle for a swallow, the fear of Leviathan for a stickleback fish"
(Shabbat 77b)
Table 3: Five Kinds of Fear
(adapted here into tabular form)
[ more
| more
| more
| more]
|
| The fear of a lion for a mafgia
("a small animal with a loud voice") |
This fear is a fear
rooted in ourselves—there is no real danger, and yet we feel consumed. Our
spirit, our strength, flies away. |
| The fear of an elephant for a
mosquito |
The mosquito flies up
the elephant’s trunk. The mosquito cannot kill the elephant, he can barely
hurt him, but he drives the lumbering beast crazy...terrorists are like
a mosquito in a nation’s trunk. They can do real damage yes, they can kill
persons—many, many persons, but they cannot destroy a People. They can drive
a whole nation crazy |
| The fear of a scorpion for a
spider |
In rabbinic lore, a
topical treatment of crushed spider juice is the antidote to the bite of
a scorpion. From the perspective of a person, then, the spider is a life-saver,
but consider what this means for the scorpion. What is a scorpion without
his venom?—just an oversized spider. The spider steals the scorpion’s power |
| The fear of an eagle for a swallow |
The little swallow perches
under the wings of the eagle, preventing the great bird from spreading her
wings... this as a moral fear. The swallow does not allow the eagle to soar.
|
| The fear of Leviathan |
A smothered Leviathan
sinks to the depths, and with him sink our faith, our hopes, our commitment
to waiting and working for a better world. This last fear is the gravest
fear of all: a fear that evil rules this world, and that this world is all
there is. |
Engendering fear through the arts: Given the overwhelming role of the
entertainment media in seeking innovative ways to engender fear (see below),
the understanding of the varieties of fear as aesthetic devices is instructive
for a broader understanding of terrorism. Oscar Sharp with Tom DeVille have
produced such a taxonomy as a guide to developing horror films (see Table 4).
Table 4: Taxonomy
of Fear
Oscar Sharp with Tom DeVille
(adapted here into tabular form)
|
| Modes of cinematic fear |
Anticipatory fear “Something’s
coming...” |
Suspense: narrative anticipation
of the known
Tension 'dread): narrative anticipation of the
unknown
Terror: empathic anticipation of the known
Tension: empathic anticipation of the unknown
Extra-narratalogical anticipation of the unknown
|
| Shock |
Direct shock
Empathic shock
Narrative shock
|
| Juxtapositive horror |
Making what is usually nice – or just everyday – seem
nasty
This includes Horror of the Self
|
| Instinctual fears |
Loss of control - Helplessness |
Empathic loss of control
Personal loss of control
|
| Need to protect |
Self
Others
|
| Isolation |
Geographical isolation
Social isolation
Removal of support
|
| Phobia |
Stimulating common irrational
fears |
| Disfigurement |
. |
| Pain |
Empathic physiological pain
Direct physiological pain
|
| Death |
. |
| Emotional contexts that inspire
fear |
Discomfort |
Direct physiological discomfort
Empathic physiological discomfort
Empathic psychological discomfort
Narrative psychological discomfort
|
| Disgust |
Direct disgust
Empathic disgust
Ironic empathic disgust
|
| "The Monster" |
Non-human |
Natural horror
Supernatural horror
Technological horror
Geographical/Spatial horror
|
| Human |
Physiological horror
Psychological horror
Sociological horror
|
Questions in distinguishing terror and terrorism
In reviewing frameworks like those above, some guiding questions include:
- How afraid does a person need to be before they are considered to be terrified?
- Can we say the quality of fear felt by one person is different to the quality
of fear felt by another?
- How to distinguish -- and possibly thereby marginalize -- the degree of
fear of a vulnerable person (elderly, child, etc) exposed to non-terrorist
threat, as compared to the fear associated with the action of terrorists?
- If the essence of terrorism is the deliberate targeting of innocents to
further political goals, how is "innocence" to be defined in an
exploitative society based on increasingly institutionalized inequality? If
the claim -- made by terrorists in targeting innocents is that they are "fighting
for justice" -- is "morally bankrupt", to what extent is the
failure to address the issues of those suffering from starvation, disease
and injustice also morally bankrupt?
- If terrorism is defined as any use of violence for the purpose of putting
any section of the public in fear (cf UK Prevention of Terrorism Act, 1976),
what degree of fear is implied and how is that distinct from fear-inducing
movies, for example? How is the use of violence by dominant groups (as a political
goal to maintain their position through "security measures") to
be distinguished from the goals of groups and individuals in seeking freedom
from that dominance?
- If the organized response to an act defined as "terrorism" includes
the infliction of maximal pain (to induce "terror" in suspects under
interrogation) is defined as "legitimate", and therefore not to
be defined as "terrorism", what is the status of this exculpatory
argument if the pain infliction is not properly based in law? This is the
challenge to George Bush and his supporters, given that he affirmed that his
(political) response was not to be constrained by the Geneva Conventions,
that such acts were deliberately undertaken in an extrajudicial context (eg
the Guantanamo facility), and that observers have expressed concern that they
were indeed war crimes [more].
Does the fact that the nature of the enabling presidential decisions to encourage
such use of maximal pain have only reluctantly been made public suggest a
stealthy use of violence to create fear for political ends -- namely a form
of terrorism according to common definitions? Or is "terrorism"
only something that others do?
- Just as a case is made for a "just war" by civilized countries
(with terrifying collateral damage to innocent civilians), a case is made
for supportive participation by covert military forces in the destabilization
of regimes for political ends -- also with terrifying collateral damage [more].
How are those foreign force participants to be distinguished from "terrorists"?
Who determines that they are not?
- How arbitrary is the distintinction between "mercenaries" and
"terrorists". George Monbiot (Pedigree
Dogs of War, Guardian, 25 January 2005) explores how some people
who engage in foreign conflicts are called terrorists, whereas others are
distinguished as businessmen licensed by the government of their home country.
He asks why an alleged engagement in foreign military operations is called
terrorism one moment and business the next. The UK government, for example,
seeks to distinguish between "responsbile and disreputable private-sector
operators", in order to "encourage and support the former"
-- thus allowing it to support military action by such operators, without
having to declare war or seek parliamentary approval.
- At what point dies "intimidation" become "terrorism"?
Or is it always a kind of "terrorism-lite"? What weight should be
attached to the claims of the "intimidated" ("terrorized"?)
as against that attached to the denials of the "intimidator" ("terrorist")?
- How dissimilar from modern day terrorist militia activities are the acts
of the Bushwackers
and Jayhawkers during the American Civil War? Which groups active in that
war, if any, should be more correctly labelled as "terrorists" according
to modern criteria? What of the contemporary supporters of those militia --
are they "terrorist sympathizers"?
- Us Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, responding to press queries on 10
September 2004 about the follow-up to the photographed abuses at Abu Ghraib
"on his watch", argued that there was no comparison between those
extraordinary events (perpetrated covertly by military personnel and now subject
to corrective measures) and "chopping off" heads of hostages by
terrorists on television [more].
Does this mean that genuine terror in a climate of fear was not evoked at
the Abu Ghraib facility -- even though engendering terror was a feature of
the authorized interrogation techniques employed, to the degree that soldiers
have admitted betting on their capacity to make prisonsers soil themselves
from fear (presumably a good indicator of terror) (see Use
of Dogs to Scare Prisoners Was Authorized, Washington Post,
11 June 2004)?
- Some cultures consider official execution of any form to be barbaric, whether
practiced by terrorist militia or by the USA, whether televised or not. In
terms of creating an addictive taste for terorism in a population, how are
occasional real executions (broadcast to cultures having that tradition) to
be compared with multi-channel, 24-hour, worldwide bradcasting of fictional
murder, mutilation, torture and gore of maximal brutality? Who distinguishes
effectively between televised exposure to "real" terror and to "reel"
terror?
- To what extent does repeated empathetic engagement in the televised perpetration
of terror-inducing acts by movie heroes, and appreciative observation of their
consequences on the victims, transform the viewer into a "terrorist"?
- Animal rights activists deplore the painful experiences to which scientists
subject animals in experiments (justified by the value of such work to humanity),
whilst denying the significance of any terror experienced by the animal. How
is this "terrorism", of which scientists are accused, to be distinguished
from the "terrorism" of which the activists are themselves accused
in seeking to block such experimentation. Can the distinction be appropriately
made without having been exposed to the reality of animals in such laboratory
environments -- or in abbatoirs?
- Animal rights activists perceive the activities of the pro-hunting community
as a form of terrorism --against animals killed for pleasure. However, if
pro-hunting activists engage in any form of protest, as with their penetration
of the UK Houses of Parliament (Invasion
of the Commons, The Guardian, 16 September 2004), to what extent
should they be assumed to be "terrorists" or treated as "terrorist
suspects"? If they are killed by security forces, would this action be
considered legitimate -- applying the precautionary principle to assume that
they were indeed terrorists? How would the situation be treated (by the media,
for example) if some of them were of apparent Arab extraction?
- To what extent should the annual ritual slaughter of sheep (at the festival
of Eid el-Kebir), by the head of each Muslim household, be recognized as a
form of terrorism -- even though studies show "no sign of distress in
the animals" when they are able to see others being slaughtered nearby
[more]?
- How to distinguish the terror experienced in an incident of exposure to
a dangerous driver, or a mugger, from an incident involving a terrorist?
- From the perspective of those exposed to extreme intimidation in institutional
environments (prison violence and sex slavery, bullying in the military or
in the playground, student hazing, etc), at what point do they have every
right to perceive themselves as victims of "terrorism"? How is the
the toleration of such behaviour (or its denial) by authorities to be compared
with their toleration of extreme fear in non-institutional contexts where
such authorities have power and arrogate to themselves the right to define
what is "terrorism" in such a way as to deny their own role in it?
- "Fear of the Lord" is fundamental to the current Christian-inspired
approach to world order (Proverbs 1:7, "The fear of the Lord [is] the
beginning of knowledge: [but] fools despise wisdom and instruction.") [more].
How is such fear to be distinguished from the "climate of fear"
which is the objective of terrorism? (see Is
God a Terrorist: Definitional game-playing by the Coalition of the Willing?
2004)
- How is the extreme terror caused by "anti-terrorist" security
forces -- before killing a person (or their child) in a search and destroy
mission in the name of peace and democracy -- to be distinguished from the
actions of a terrorist bent on creating mayhem?
- To what degree are the actors, in a confrontation engendering terror, free
to define each other as a "terrorist" -- especially when the death
of one by a bullet from the other (pre-defined as an "anti-terrorist")
is accepted as prima facie evidence confirming that the one killed
was necessarily a "terrorist"? Who controls judgements in this radical
definitional process? Is this pre-emptive justice the legitmating framework
for pre-emptive strikes?
Distinguishing degrees of fear and terror
Fear can be described by different terms in accordance with its relative degrees.
Fear covers a number of terms -- terror, fright, paranoia, horror, persecution
complex. Terror then refers to a pronounced state of fear, where someone becomes
overwhelmed with a sense of immediate danger [more].
In distinguishing degrees of fear and terror, how relevant are the following
frameworks:
- Should degrees of fear be distinguished according to a metaphor such as
heating water: low order fear corresponding to "tepid", mild fear
to "warm", and severe fear to "hot" -- with only "boiling"
corresponding to "terror"? Or are there more appropriate distinctions
explored by specialists in interrogation?
If the water-heating metaphor is meaningful it might be usefully combined
with the classic story of the experience of two frogs, one exposed suddenly
and the other gradually to heated water. What then is to be said of the "terror"
experienced by someone exposed suddently to a "terrifying" situation,
as compared to someone who has been gradually exposed to an increasingly fearful
environment? As with the frog subjected to progressively hotter water, does
the person's adaptation imply that "terror" is never actually experienced
(before he or she dies of "fright")? How do people living in extremely
fearful environments distinguish "terror"?
- VIPs, whether government leaders, corporate executives, or celebrities,
or the paranoid wealthy, increasingly make use of bodyguards (close protection
officers or protection specialists) in response to death threats and the possibility
of kidnapping. The number of such bodyguards, or the budget allocated to them,
may be considered a quantitative measure of the level of fear under which
the protected person lives. In 2000 hundreds of bodyguards were being funded
(at an estimated cost £50m each year) by the UK government for public figures
considered to be at risk. British MPs may have one. Coverage may range from
one (namely a team of 3 for 24-hour coverage), to 10 or more for special events
(as in the case of Salman Rushdie), to 35 in the case of Mohamed al-Fayed,
to £30m per year for the UK Royal Family [more].
From such a perspective, the rising cost of protection of the most powerful
man on the planet may ironically be considered as a measure of the level of
fear under which the champion of freedom lives: At the time of the American
Civil War, 3 people were required for presidential protection at The White
House. By 1895 this had risen to 27, rising thereafter as follows: 1917, 34;
1930, 48; 1935, 60; 1940, 80; 1947, 110; 1952, 170; 1967, 213; 1970, 850;
to an estimated level of 1200 [more].
In the USA, following 9/11, the needs of homeland security have ecalated the
investment in personal security -- which might again be used as a quantitative
measure of the level of fear. In fiscal year 2004, the USA $41.347 billion
homeland security budget request was a $3.2 billion increase over 2003 [more]
- Given the security preoccupation with distinct levels of threat, can levels
of fear or terror be usefully correlated with the US DEFense CONdition (defense
readiness) typology? In the USA, in the event of a national emergency, a series
of seven different alert Conditions (LERTCONs) can be called. The 7 LERTCONs
are broken down into 5 Defense Conditions (DEFCONs) and 2 Emergency Conditions
(EMERGCONs). Defense readiness conditions (DEFCONs) describe progressive alert
postures primarily for use between the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the commanders
of unified commands and are graduated to match situations of varying military
severity. They are are phased increases in combat readiness [more]:
- DEFCON 5: Normal peacetime readiness
- DEFCON 4: Normal, increased intelligence and strengthened security measures
- DEFCON 3: Increase in force readiness above normal readiness
- DEFCON 2: Further Increase in force readiness, but less than maximum
readiness
- DEFCON 1: Maximum force readiness
In direct response to the terrorist threat, TotalSecurity.US, has partnered
with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to establish and create two
new phases in the Homeland Security Advisory System resulting in a seven-colour
scale understanding of collective threat [more]
A fundamental question that might be asked is why no corresponding threat level
scales exist for the kinds of terrifying situation experienced by many independently
of any terrorist threat (narrowly defined)? For example:
- In measures of quality of life, what kind of scale would be appropriate
to distinguish the level of fear (or terror) associated with a privileged
environment in contrast with one of extreme poverty, notably in inn
|
