In yet another example of the term "terrorism" being possibly misidentified, the government of Jordan has charged a man with terrorism for stabbing a German in Amman. You can find the article here.
I think the article is almost funny (minus the whole stabbing part), because it says that they initially did not consider the act terrorism, but after finding out that the Jordanian had a long beard and was apparently an Islamist, they changed their minds and charged him with terrorism.
It's interesting to note that motives of the attack were still unclear. They don't yet know if he is a member of a sub-state organization with a political aim, but apparently they believe he is an Islamist, and I guess that's enough to charge him with terrorism. It's possible (and likely) however that Jordan has a slightly different (read: skewed) definition of terrorism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I definitely agree with you. I think this is a clear use of labeling an act as terrorism to simply carry a negative connotation. It reminds me of times that I have overheard people labeling someone as a terrorist, even in a joking manner, simply because they appear to be from the middle east. It's funny that it was only considered a terrorist act when they knew the character of the man who did it.
I find it interesting and sad that a government has stooped to the level of judging "terrorism" based on a person's religion. Not only is this possibly mislabeled, but it is not done so only because the man committed a cruel act. I wonder at what point the mindset of the people of this government changed. I don't feel that they always had the view that Islamic people were terrorists. So, what changed this view and when? Did it coincide with September 11th and the beginning of the American hunt for Al Qaeda? In this case, I can definitely see how outside influences, such as Western media, could affect the outlook of the Jordanian government. If these views were held pre-9/11, however, I think it would be interesting to research their roots and find why this government was so quick to tag this man as a terrorist.
The facts don't seem clear enough as to whether or not this could be deemed a terrorist attack. The fact that it wasn't originally labeled as such and then was made into a terrorist attack makes me think that the state was in fact right in this case. I think in this class we forget what we learned in the early readings: there's really no consistent definition to what terrorism is. Sure, I think it's fair to say that we as students of terrorism have a better idea than most, but since there hasn't been a widespread adoption of a meaning for the term, it isn't really fair to assume that it is a blatant misuse of the term, especially in a case with so little of the facts presented to us as the public.
I absolutely agree with Scott. Further, it is important to note that this man is identified as an "Islamist". I am not saying that all who hold Islamist view are terrorists, but earlier in the semester we identified the difference between a Muslim (or a follower of Islam) and an Islamist (or a Islamic fundamentalist). An Islamist is someone who directly or indirectly supports Islamic Fundamentalism and there by justifies the means adopted by fundamentalists. I am sure the Jordanian government had their reasons (besides the fact that this person was Muslim) to identify him as a terrorist, it seems highly unlikely that a country with a 92% Muslim population would stereotype Muslims with long beards as terrorists. The media thrives on sensationalizing news, after all, I am sure if they had reported this story in any other way, we would not be looking at it with such scrutiny.
As funny as it may sound this actually could be terrorism. It really depends on his motives and connectedness to other groups. Just because the person was not high profile does not mean it's not terrorism. He was targeted because he was a westerner. Let us not forget what terrorism means. This could be a form of social control if he was acted in concert with a terrorist entity.
News update: Jordan's Interior Minister called the stabbing an isolated incident that occurs randomly in every country. The unidentified German man was reported to be in stable condition. Here's the article:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/192446,jordan-minister-stabbing-of-tourist-an-isolated-incident--summary.html
After reading the updated article it made me think, “What if the German tourist ended up being a German Special Forces operative?” Would this change our outlook on the whole scenario? What if the Jordanian was also a special forces operative acting on orders from his government to assassinate the German. It sounds right out of the last James Bond movie "Casino Royale," but there are secret agents out there that aren’t very good at their jobs. My point is it might change our perspective, but really should it? If a person is stabbed by “a crazy man” as this article claims it shouldn’t matter who they are it should be investigated further, as others have said in the blog, before condemning him as a terrorist.
Post a Comment