The 21st century isn't even a full fifth of the way done, but already it has had its share of tragedies both natural and artificial. From 9/11 to the 7/7 bombings and beyond, so-called "terrorism" has been the "Red Scare" of our current era. But terrorism has a far different definition than most people realize. Most commonly, currently, defined as the "unlawful use of violence or the threat of violence to meet political ends."
The part of that definition that really catches my attention is the very first word. "Unlawful." So by the modern American definition of terrorism, if you were to bomb a western hospital, even a military one, then you would be a terrorist. But, if I were to say, join the military and blow up a civilian hospital in another country, I would not be a terrorist. Even if I then drove a tank over the evidence when the victims called for justice.
This kind of political doublespeak, using the word "unlawful" in an otherwise proper definition is a perfect example of an "appeal to authority" mindset and culture. Much like how cops dropping bombs on children just gets plain ole forgot about, while animal right's activists are considered the "greatest domestic terrorism threat," according to the FBI.
While terrorism in its many forms can truly be said to have existed as long as civilization if not before, its modern rise to prominence began with the American financial, material, and political support for the Taliban as part of the Cold War. While Americans supported terrorists in other regions of the world as well, the middle east proved a perfect breeding ground for the religious as well as the freedom fighting brands of terrorism.
I'm sure you are familiar with religious terrorism. The kind that the media would have you think represents all violence in the middle east. From all reliable accounts, however, the majority of "terrorists" are not religiously motivated, or at least not primarily, and are instead fighting what they consider foreign invaders or at best local puppet governments.
The United States, along with many other western nations and organizations like NATO have been involved in the overthrow of legitimate governments, assassinations, economic and conventional warfare, and many other forms of destabilization in the middle and near east. These factors all contribute to a populous where many people have lost friends or close family to terror attacks. But not domestic terror.
When coalition forces invaded Iraq and Afghanistan they used both violence and the threat thereof to meet their political goals. And they broke laws, not just Iraq's and Afghanistan's laws, but international and in at least the case of the USA, its own laws as well. This means that even by the definition of terrorism given to us by the FBI and NATO, coalition forces in the Iraq and Afghani wars were terrorist forces. Foreign terrorists.
I was a kid when the wars began. But some people who enlisted during the early days have served nearly an entire career without either war ending or showing any real signs of a victory. In fact, what the west considers terrorism has only increased in that time, with entire new organizations forming and whole countries either falling to terrorist control i.e. Libya or descending into a long and drawn out war like Syria.
Terrorism not only claims lives directly through violence, but claims livelihoods by ruining economies, eliminating public works, and breaking apart families. Not typically in the west of course. In fact, if you can read this odds are you probably don't know a single person affected by terrorism. English speaking countries are amongst the safest. Elsewhere in the world, however, terrorism isn't a buzzword, a fancy charge to lay on activists, or a distant bogeyman, its a way of life.
To be continued...