| |
|
US Sec. of Health and Human services described the recent exposure of several US citizens to strains of anthrax as "bioterrorism." The events of September 11th have, for all intents and purposes, been accepted as "terrorist" activity. But is this is a proper name for these events?
Terrorism, as I have traditionally understood it, is the use of violent tactics to further a political cause. If the target of the attack is not itself a political symbol, the terrorist themselves must make clear that it is a political act they have accomplished.
According to Negri and HArdt, it is a word used by the agents of "Empire" to describe "politics by other means" for groups of people who don't fit into Modernist conception of a sovereign nation.
Now, were the acts of September 11th political? Undoubtedly, it seems. But why do we make this assumption, given the fact that no group has taken responisibility for the actions (a previous hallmark of "terrorist" activities)? The assumption was made initially simply because of the ethnicity of the alleged perpetrators. But as yet, unless you prefer to read between the lines of statements made by Al-Queda (and with the latest "press release" by that org, it becomes clearer that they were indeed responsible), no concrete political motivation has been delineated by the agitators for or those responsible for the attack. My question would be, is this a terrorist act, or simply mass murder, if someone, some group, does NOT use it to further their political cause?
The cases of anthrax so far do not seem to be terrorism as they are unlinked with politics, unattributed, and isolated incidents. I suppose if the Unabomber was considered a terrorist the anthrax attackers are terrorists as well.
Comments? Requests for clarification? |
|
|
