Who the terrorist the USA or Moslems?

In the questionnaire which to us was offered by organizers of the Round table, all are very well designated, allocated the different aspects of terrorism requiring judgement. But questions are formulated thus as though we knew that such terrorism. And actually it not so. We do not know that such terrorism neither as concept, nor as a real phenomenon. It is a question not of a scientific definition round which it is possible to argue infinitely. And about very simple and at the same time all-important thing: in company there is no unambiguity concerning identification of those or other phenomena as the terrorist. And I mean at all that fact that terrorists try to rehabilitate themselves and to issue the evil deeds for certain legitimate actions in human sense. I mean public opinion, the public sights expressing different political, research, national and other items.

On any questions there is a big degree of unanimity. Clearly: that happens in the USA on September, 11th, 2001 and at us in Beslan on September, 1st, 2004 are indisputable certificates of terrorism (though objectivity requires to recognise: there were the people which heart jumped with joy on September, 11th, 2001 and which in a number of cities triumphing, jumped in streets; there are such mass media in the world which do not consider those who has seized school in Beslan, terrorists). And if to take more difficult cases, as, for example, bombardments of Serbia by the NATO countries in 1999, or aggression of the USA with allies against Iraq understanding, an estimation of these phenomena are very far from the consent. There are those who considers it as terrorism displays, and there are those who sees here something opposite: struggle against terrorism. Items of those and others on number of people representing them and force of the argument hardly probable are not proportionate one another. And after all there are even more inconsistent situations which also are difficult for making under concept of terrorism, as well as to exclude from it. What, for example, in this plan we can tell about forms of struggle which are practised today in Iraq by resistance to occupational armies and an occupational mode?! In a word, we should not pretend, as if speaking about terrorism, we precisely know about what we speak.

Terrorism – one word, but many the different phenomena. Sociologists allocate tens its versions. Speaking about it, I will mean the international terrorism struggle against which is lifted today on level of the politiko-ideological program of all Western world. As the phenomenon it in my submission is recorded by attack to Shopping centre buildings in New York which, considering that these buildings symbolised technical and financial power of the USA, it is possible to consider as attack to the USA. It neither in any kind, nor with any clauses is justified cannot be. Therefore, by the way, it is difficult to speak about it for to tell, search for the reasons, to explain is always after all to some extent to understand and justify. There are, at least, two questions which in connection with the international terrorism remain not explained that, probably, even is done intentionally: whom does it represent and what itself represents?

Abundantly clear that the terrorism does not become isolated on those who makes terroristic acts and does not speak their individual (psychophysiological, biographic) features though, certainly, it comes under to research and from this point of view. Behind it it seems there are any social, political forces, ideological traditions, perhaps, financial interests. What? On this question there is no answer. In that kind in what terrorism and terrorists directly appear and are recorded as the destruction purpose, they do not keep within any habitual explanatory schemes. As if, it is a question of the social phenomenon like AIDS and newcomers from other planets having other anthropological structure. Recently in one of interview of the president of Russia which, by the way to notice, the first among politicians has recorded the international terrorism as global danger, the thought has sounded that the international terrorism is guided by idea of revival of Halifata. Very similar on the truth. The idea of Halifata, the world mission of Islam fights in a shower of each Moslem. I wish to remind such symbolical episode from a contemporary history. At the height of reorganisation imam Khomeini has sent M.S.Gorbachevu's letter. In it it was said that the future of Russia which in connection with crash of a Marxist socialism faces to a new choice, can be connected with Islam. Khomeini suggested Gorbachev to lead the country towards an Islamic civilisation. It was sincere, he trusted in it. It is quite possible to assume that is much, even it is a lot of people who trust in it. That, the idea of Muslim revival in the form of the uniform state in itself does not comprise anything criminal, as well as other универсалистские idea, for example, communistic интернационала, панславизма, Christian всеединства, even the European association. It is possible to consider it utopian, conservative, archaic, any, but not criminal. And it can become организующей and an inspiring basis of scale activity. The portrait of the modern terrorist constituted by American expert Mark Sejdzhmenom from University of Pennsylvania («the Political journal» from 8/2/2004 see about it, 14.02.05) on the basis of studying more than 500 biographies of the people included in terrorist networks can be indirect acknowledgement of it. It has appeared that it is very similar to our domestic terrorists of the end of a XIX-th century: the formed, is cosmopolitan adjusted, romantic fighter for justice and the truth; thus mentally quite healthy.

It is received: the international terrorism is connected with globalisation processes. It really is international in the sense that is entered in rough process of reorganisation of the international relations. The terrorism was lifted on transnational level together with behind) a policy, economy, the finance, informational flows. Let's take interface of such facts: there is a monstrous act of terrorism on September, 11th and through short time in some months of an army of the USA dethrone a mode of Talibs in Afghanistan and appear in republics of Central Asia. Who will tell: where here the reason and where a consequence? Or other supervision: as soon as there is any act of terrorism or even a hint on it, mass-media, first of all TV, are instantly excited, as if their hour of triumph has come. Unless here there is no mutual feed?

The US president who has declared war to the international terrorism, has formulated also its ideology. It considers it in a context of great mission of the West led by the USA on distribution of democratic values all over the world. He says that there is a struggle of good against harm, and who not with us, that against us, speaks on behalf of history, the right of the people to a life and the happy future. All these starry-eyed things with which it is impossible to argue, but which in itself it is not enough about what speak and can be everything – and high motivation of behaviour, both sincere error, and the cynical demagogy, all these substantiations and justifications of ruthless war with the international terrorism contain in Bush's speeches. He even appeals to God, believing that God in this struggle is not neutral.