BACKGROUND

Guerrilla warfare, as fought by the Boers one century ago, is recognized internationally as the  honourable defence by disciplined fighters against a superior, armed enemy. The Boers attacked classical military targets, even though outnumbered most of the time by overwhelming numbers. The so-called 'freedom fighters' of Southern Africa, however, be they  Frelimo, Zanu, Swapo or the ANC/Communist Mkonto e Sizwe (MK), very seldom attacked  anything resembling a military target, - on the contrary, they specialized in the callous bombing of Wimpy Bars, the cowardly laying of landmines on farm roads, the barbarian 'necklacing' of defenceless township dwellers, and even the brutal torture of their own dissident comrades.  What makes these atrocities more despicable is that some of the organizations actually signed the Geneva Protocols, which explicitly forbid this kind of terror and cruel intimidation. Serious students who wish to get an unbiased and  balanced picture of the kind of terrorist 'war' fought by terrorist organisations like the ANC/SACP, the PAC and others should read the book "The Other Side of the Story" by Herman Stadtler, Sigma Press, ISBN 0-620-21100-8.
Here follow a few graphic images of atrocities committed by  the so-called 'Freedom Fighters' of Southern Africa. !Warning : The pictures may offend some readers' sensitivities.  
(images - Click on thumbnails for larger version)                   
               [image 1] The remains of a civilian bakkie [small truck], which detonated a landmine on the road between Ulundi and Nkongo in Eastern Ovamboland. Because many of the local people are poor and do not own a vehicle, locals used to hitch rides on the back of these vehicles to the nearest town to buy their daily needs. These "soft target" vehicles offered no protection against the Swapo mines, often boosted by placing two mines on top of each other.

[ image 2] To deliver rations to remote bases, 'rat run' trucks had to cover long distances over untarred roads. Ahead of them, the hardy 'sappers' walked these dusty dirt roads on foot, mile after mile under the blazing African sun, 'sweeping' the two well-defined tracks with their mine detectors. 
                                                                                                                                                     [image 3] Another landmine statistic : More innocent locals and their vehicle. Note the crater made by the explosion [foreground] and the distance the vehicle was flung. Those not dead were usually badly mutulated, for life. In his incident many black locals were killed.[photo - near Ulundi]

[image 4 & 5]  One of two pieces of a "Wit Olifant" [White elephant] after it struck a landmine. The name 'Wit olifant' was given to the big white  Mercedes Benz Trucks transporting goods to remote outposts throughout the old South West Africa (now Naminbia). In this instance the driver was on his way to Ruacana when he detonated a landmine. Because it was a civilian vehicle which detonated the mine, a police   task force in a 'Hippo' was sent out to investigate. The Hippo was a mine-protected personnel-carrying vehicle built on the chassis of the old 'vasbyt" Bedford. In this incident, the area was swept thoroughly for further landmines, declared "clear" and....WOOM,  the Hippo went up as well, just as it was about to leave the scene.   Actual figures of people killed or injured in this incident are not known. As in most cases it all happened near a local kraal [village]. The local people, although not hostile to the police and army forces, refused to say who planted the mines for fear of the brutal intimidation and savage methods of the terrorist. It was not uncommon for an "informant" (real or not) or simply the headman to have his tongue cut out, his child or wife killed, or, as in recent South Africa, to be tied up, soaked in petrol and then be burnt alive with a tyre round his neck For civilized soldiers anywhere this type of intimidation and situation was totally alien, and it is no wonder they were at wit's end.
                                                                                                                                                       [image 6] This civilian truck detonated a landmine near Nkongo in Northern South West Africa. The logistical wing of the army lend a hand to tow it to Oshakati. It is not known whether the driver was killed in the incident.

Church Street Bomb', 1983.

A beheaded victim of the notorious 'Church Street Bomb', 1983.  How can the detonation of a car packed full of explosives, parked at peak hour traffic in Church Street, Pretoria, in the middle of thousands of unarmed and inocent civilians, both black and white, be classified as an "act of war"?   [photo from the book, "The Other side of the Story, A True perspective."]

more imformations

[image 1] This victim of a necklace murder still has his arms tied behind his back. Although it is unthinkable for the normal human mind that people can dance and chant around a burning and begging human being, it actually happened in more than 400 reported cases. Why? One should ask the so-called 'Mother of the (Azanian) Nation',  Mrs Mandela,  what she meant, when she said, quote : "With tyres and matches we will liberate this country", unquote... [image 2] Still another victim of the "necklace" murders by supporters of the ANC/Communist alliance. Note the steel rings of the tyre still around the bodies' neck. All of these people were civilians, and they were murdered for such reasons as "not taking part in illegal strikes", not adhering to party policy and not obeying "non-shopping orders" Many mother's were forced to eat the borax and washing-powder they bought for their households because "they dared to challenge ANC's orders not to buy from whites"

images of terrorism

[above]Terrorism did not stop when the ANC/Communist alliance officially ended its terror war. The former terrorists had been given South Africa, lock, stock and barrel, by a spineless De Klerk government, but their slogans 'Kill a Boer, kill a Farmer', and 'One Settler, One Bullet' were  and are still being screamed out, the clenched fist is still raised, and anyway, old terrorist habits die hard. While the words 'peace', 'democracy', 'reconciliation' and 'justice' are gushing out like verbal diarrhea from politicians' mouths, something totally different is gushing out from countless defenceless, innocent victims : Blood and guts. Now classified under the euphemism 'crime', the terror continues unabated, - if anything, worse than ever before. The aim is still the same : To drive out the white man and to intimidate all opposition, white and black. The focus is still on lonely farms and on the weak and helpless : Especially the elderly, women, even babies are brutally attacked, beaten, raped and killed. The politically correct, fawning media reports the 'crime' on page 4, it even makes clucking noises every now and then, - but none dare call it what it is : Terrorism in its pure, unadulterated form. Terrorism aided and abetted by the Regime in its many forms and variations : Be they Ministers like Peter Mokaba shouting 'Kill the Boer", Missies Mandela screaming out hate-speech, hit-squads slaying opposition politicians, or the gullible mob doing the butchering on the streets, inside houses, at the work place, or on farms. By the end of 2001, 7 years into ANC/Communist rule more than 1150 mostly white farmers have already been murdered in the so-called democratic new South Africa.

TERRORISM

There is no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism.^[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror), are perpetrated for a religious, political or ideological goal, and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).^{[citation needed]} Some definitions now exclude acts of state terrorism and some also include acts of unlawful violence and war. The use of similar tactics by criminal organizations for protection rackets or to enforce a code of silence is usually not labeled terrorism though these same actions may be labeled terrorism when done by a politically motivated group.
The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,^[3] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.^[4][5] The concept of terrorism may itself be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,^[6] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may itself be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).^[6][7]
Terrorism has been practiced by a broad array of political organizations for furthering their objectives. It has been practiced by both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic groups, religious groups, revolutionaries, and ruling governments.^[8] An abiding characteristic is the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.^[9]

Origin of term

See also: Terror and State terrorism

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,^[10] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror. The French word terrorisme in turn derives from the Latin verb terreō meaning “I frighten”.^[11] The terror cimbricus was a panic and state of emergency in Rome in response to the approach of warriors of the Cimbri tribe in 105 BC. The Jacobins cited this precedent when imposing a Reign of Terror during the French Revolution.^[12][13] After the Jacobins lost power, the word "terrorist" became a term of abuse.^[6] Although "terrorism" originally referred acts committed by a government, currently it usually refers to the killing of innocent people^[14] by a non-government group in such a way as to create a media spectacle.^[15] This meaning can be traced back to Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a "terrorist".^[16] Nechayev founded the Russian terrorist group "People's Retribution" (Народная расправа) in 1869.
In November 2004, a United Nations Secretary General report described terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act".^[17]

Definition

Main article: Definition of terrorism

The definition of terrorism has proved controversial. Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of terrorism in their national legislation. Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.^[18] In this regard, Angus Martyn, briefing the Australian Parliament, stated that "The international community has never succeeded in developing an accepted comprehensive definition of terrorism. During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Nations attempts to define the term foundered mainly due to differences of opinion between various members about the use of violence in the context of conflicts over national liberation and self-determination."^[1]
These divergences have made it impossible for the United Nations to conclude a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism that incorporates a single, all-encompassing, legally binding, criminal law definition terrorism.^[19] Nonetheless, the international community has adopted a series of sectoral conventions that define and criminalize various types of terrorist activities. Moreover, since 1994, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly condemned terrorist acts using the following political description of terrorism: "Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them."^[20]
Bruce Hoffman, a well-known scholar, has noted that:

It is not only individual agencies within the same governmental apparatus that cannot agree on a single definition of terrorism. Experts and other long-established scholars in the field are equally incapable of reaching a consensus. In the first edition of his magisterial survey, “Political terrorism: A Research Guide,” Alex Schmid devoted more than a hundred pages to examining more than a hundred different definition of terrorism in a effort to discover a broadly acceptable, reasonably comprehensive explication of the word. Four years and a second edition later, Schimd was no closer to the goal of his quest, conceding in the first sentence of the revised volume that the “search for an adequate definition is still on” Walter Laqueur despaired of defining terrorism in both editions of his monumental work on the subject, maintaining that it is neither possible to do so nor worthwhile to make the attempt.”^[21]

Nonetheless, Hoffman himself believes it is possible to identify some key characteristics of terrorism. He proposes that:

By distinguishing terrorists from other types of criminals and terrorism from other forms of crime, we come to appreciate that terrorism is :

• ineluctably political in aims and motives
• violent – or, equally important, threatens violence
• designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target
• conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia) and
• perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.^[22]

A definition proposed by Carsten Bockstette at the George C. Marshall Center for European Security Studies, underlines the psychological and tactical aspects of terrorism:

Terrorism is defined as political violence in an asymmetrical conflict that is designed to induce terror and psychic fear (sometimes indiscriminate) through the violent victimization and destruction of noncombatant targets (sometimes iconic symbols). Such acts are meant to send a message from an illicit clandestine organization. The purpose of terrorism is to exploit the media in order to achieve maximum attainable publicity as an amplifying force multiplier in order to influence the targeted audience(s) in order to reach short- and midterm political goals and/or desired long-term end states."^[23]

Walter Laqueur, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, noted that "the only general characteristic of terrorism generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".^{[citation needed]} This criterion alone does not produce, however, a useful definition, since it includes many violent acts not usually considered terrorism: war, riot, organized crime, or even a simple assault.^{[citation needed]} Property destruction that does not endanger life is not usually considered a violent crime,^{[according to whom?]} but some have described property destruction by the Earth Liberation Front^[24] and Animal Liberation Front^[25] as violence and terrorism; see eco-terrorism.
Terrorist attacks are usually carried out in such a way as to maximize the severity and length of the psychological impact.^[26] Each act of terrorism is a “performance” devised to have an impact on many large audiences. Terrorists also attack national symbols,^[27] to show power and to attempt to shake the foundation of the country or society they are opposed to. This may negatively affect a government, while increasing the prestige of the given terrorist organization and/or ideology behind a terrorist act.^[28]
Terrorist acts frequently have a political purpose.^[29] Terrorism is a political tactic, like letter-writing or protesting, which is used by activists when they believe that no other means will effect the kind of change they desire.^{[according to whom?]} The change is desired so badly that failure to achieve change is seen as a worse outcome than the deaths of civilians.^{[citation needed]} This is often where the inter-relationship between terrorism and religion occurs. When a political struggle is integrated into the framework of a religious or "cosmic"^[30] struggle, such as over the control of an ancestral homeland or holy site such as Israel and Jerusalem, failing in the political goal (nationalism) becomes equated with spiritual failure, which, for the highly committed, is worse than their own death or the deaths of innocent civilians.^[31]
Very often, the victims of terrorism are targeted not because they are threats, but because they are specific "symbols, tools, animals or corrupt beings"^{[citation needed]} that tie into a specific view of the world that the terrorists possess. Their suffering accomplishes the terrorists' goals of instilling fear, getting their message out to an audience or otherwise satisfying the demands of their often radical religious and political agendas.^[32]
Some official, governmental definitions of terrorism use the criterion of the illegitimacy or unlawfulness of the act.^{[33][non-primary source needed]} to distinguish between actions authorized by a government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned.^{[citation needed]} For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a government.^{[original research?]} This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted,^{[attribution needed]} because: it denies the existence of state terrorism;^[34] the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.^{[35][36][37][38]}
Among the various definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country.^{[citation needed]} Other definitions would label as terrorist groups only the resistance movements that oppose an invader with violent acts that undiscriminately kill or harm civilians and non-combatants, thus making a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.^{[citation needed]} According to Ali Khan, the distinction lies ultimatedly in a political judgment.^[39]
An associated, and arguably more easily definable, but not equivalent term is violent non-state actor.^[40] The semantic scope of this term includes not only "terrorists", but while excluding some individuals or groups who have previously been described as "terrorists", and also explicitly excludes state terrorism. According to the FBI terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.^{[citation needed]}