IT IS amazing how few in the world are actually questioning the wisdom of the violence being perpetrated by the Allied forces in Afghanistan. The relentless bombardment and wanton destruction of that country which has left hundreds of civilians dead has elicited hardly a whimper of protest.

The recent mass slaughter of hundreds of Taliban prisoners prompted only protests from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Amnesty International, while only one or two journalists dared to criticize the massacre. The Amnesty International and the UN High Commissioner called for an inquiry into the deaths, but the Allied forces promptly rejected the call.

If the Sept 11 tragedy was an act of “terrorism”, what does then the world call the perpetration of similar, if not worse, acts of violence upon those in Afghanistan, whether they are soldiers, freedom-fighters, civilians or prisoners? In both cases, violence and the threat of violence is used to create a climate of fear in a given population. The only difference between the two is in the purpose.

September 11’s was a violent act by a relatively small and weak group which, presumably driven by fierce religious motivation, seeks to magnify their influence and power through publicity and fear generated by their violence to effect a political change. In the case of the violent act of “war” being waged on Afghanistan, and threats of a similar “war” on Iraq if it didn’t “behave”, the purpose is to bully and suppress the weaker group into falling in line.

But while one violent act is termed “terrorism” and its perpetrators “terrorists”, the violence being rained on Afghanistan is justified as a “war against terrorism” and any consequent killings are simply waived off as “collateral damage” or by casual remarks like “these things happen in war”.

The use of violence as a political means by weaker groups dates back to at least the first century AD when the Zealots, a J