One of the more dumb journalists in the profession,
Keskisuomalainen editorial writer, Tapani Luotala

This is the same man, who years ago, after penning an article critical of Israel’s settlement policies as well as condemned it for “violating international law”, couldn’t even tell the Tundra Tabloids in a phone conversation at the time, what the difference was between a Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 UNSC resolution.
Now, this is a man who at the time was the acting editor in chief of the foreign news department of this central Finland newspaper, and was found to have been shooting off his mouth without having all of the facts by yours truly. But in today’s news reporting, this happens to be the case more times than not.
So in yesterday’s paper, (I almost decided to look the other way because who cares about a lone Finnish newspaper anyways, right? But it’s a learning experience for many so here goes) he writes the following concerning terrorism and state terrorism in light of the recent terror alert in the US, France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe, in: A Suitable Shadowy Enemy

KSML:The western world has lived for the current week in fear of terrorist attacks. Britain and France have reacted and most prominently the United States to a terrorist warning, which appears to be focused on Germany. Sweden has also issued a travel warning to its citizens. Finland is content to monitor the situation.  

So something bad is feared. A cynic could say that terrorism is the rulers ‘good enemy’, a vague threat, which can always also be unsubstantiated, buy their own actions and legitimacy and public confidence. The suitable manipulating of the threat of terrorism may impact for example, the political business cycle, and U.S. mid-term elections. On the other hand, if the fears and threats influence political decision-making, the terrorists have achieved their objective, therefore, by sometimes doing nothing.   

[TT: True, recent history has shown that Islamic terrorists have in fact made many warnings which raised heightened alarms in the West, at the expense of time, money and man power. But is that the actual goals of the jiahdis, wasting the resources of the West, or to mentally tire them out, as well as exploring how they respond in order to carry out a better planned attack? One thing is for certain, Islamic jihadists have shown the capacity to adapt, learn and to throw their enemies off balance. Interestingly this cynical journalist (yeah that’s right, he “speaks of cynicism”, but he’s actually describing himself) doesn’t bother to mention these points.] 

Already the initial position is to reveal one of the main sides of terrorism: it’s lifeblood is publicity. Unfortunately, terrorist acts are so publicity dealership that speak to the media and terrorism, the symbiosis is justified.

The concept of terrorism is so complex, for example, that the UN has ever been able to define it. The old truth is that “one’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Again, these concepts collide, because they are defined in different ways, dirty terrorist methodology and freedom fighter lofty goals. These aspects may also be confused, which depends upon identifying which side he put more emphasis on. For example, Finland has not found it appropriate to count Eugen Schauman as a terrorist like many other assassins

[TT: Now we come closer to the points that this cynical and highly historically challenged editor is trying to make, that there’s no substantial difference between states warring under the guidelines of the Geneva conventions, and fur faced jihadis waging their terrorist campaigns around the world, and he drags an often cited example here in Finland to help prove his point. Eugen Schauman
Tapani Luotola engages in a very silly argument by dragging the Schauman case as proof of a state’s and/or people’s subjectiveness when it comes to terrorism. Schauman is considered a hero in Finland for giving himself up for the cause of Finnish independence by shooting (and himself) the then Czarist Governor-General at the time, Nikolai Ivanovich Bobrikov.
While one should classify his act as indeed terrorism, a political act of murder, he was however a terrorist with a very small ‘t’, and should be viewed as such, and not lumped together with blood thirsty animals who have no respect for life whatsoever. The Muslims, communists and other totalitarian groups who have engaged in acts of terror, do so, on whole different level, while seeking to enslave those they claim to liberate. 
Hack journalists like Luotola fail to make the distinction, they are more than happy to lump them all together and thereby cloud the main issue at stake. The intentional mass murder of civilians, any or all civilians, in spite of the fact that no military target is in question, all casualties are welcome, the more the merrier they will be. Also, it’s highly farcical to look to the UN, as it is presently, and wonder why htey haven’t been able to come up with a proper definition for terrorism, when member states openly approve, and behind the scenes, support terrorism. Sheesh”! ] 


Terrorism is not an “ism”, ie, ideological, societal concept, but only one method of exercise of violence. To say that terrorism is a terrorist activity conducted, it is just a circular argument.

Terrorism has been tried to be classified, also according to it’s motives, among other things, nationalist, separatist, religious or revolutionary trends, but of the phenomenon itself, the distinctions are not saying much. One of the other more fruitful clues may eventually be a reference to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website warfare.

States are characterized by violence, including lethal violence, the use of a legalized monopoly. Resorting to war, it is called. When stateless groups are pursuing the same, it is terrorism.

Again, this interpretation leaves open the question of state terrorism, which is behind the state of lawlessness in a different form. Many people can rightly considered as perhaps major cities having been destroyed in World War II bombing as terrorism, but proving it is often difficult, because the existence of the surviving stronger state apparatus has a monopoly on the truth and the privilege of being the “winners in history.”

TT: This is exactly the point of the column, that there is no difference between a state at war and a terrorist blowing up civilians in a market place, as long as in both situations civilians die, regardless of the intentions and motives behind it, they are for all practical purposes one in the same, it’s just that a state has the monopoly on the power, while the poor terrorist does not. 
It’s a highly confused thought loaded with contradictions, obfuscations and simplistic notions of right and wrong, but sadly, that’s what the journalistic profession has devolved itself into, for the most part, a cadre of whining, ankle biters who couldn’t fight their way out of intellectual wet paper bag if they tried. Nor would they want to, they like it there.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.