Lets see if the censors let this through
Nov. 19th, 2009 10:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sathorWritten as an editorial to my local paper. Unlikely to see it printed, but it would surprise me. I plan on overwhelming them with intellectual editorials while I'm still living in this shit hole - it's the least I can do.
Terrorism: n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The interesting part about the dictionary definition of terrorism is that one will find every military in the history of the world is guilty of it. There is no exception, and in fact, the United States is one of the most historically prominent with regards to state supported terrorism. Beginning with the eradication of Native Americans, leading up to the present day preemptive/preventative, international-law violating invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and likely soon to be Iran. A "War on Terror" is oxymoronic at best, and at worst simply an uneducated, idiotic, primitive attempt at catalyzing public opinion. Not that it has not been successful, and in this I suppose our fair rulers should be applauded. By successful I of course mean successful in catalyzing public opinion to be in support of horrific acts of murder and destruction, not successful in the sense that the "war" can ever be won. Indeed, it is a well known fact both by American intelligence agencies and general public opinion that the "War on Terror" started in the early 80s has more or less resulted in a heightened risk for American citizens at home and abroad. Even with such facts available to the general public and to our government officials, the "war" continues nonetheless, undeterred. Either this is a sign of the complete incapacity of our officials to use the reasoning faculties granted to them by nature, or it is a sign that they are well aware of what they are doing, and more importantly, do not care that it is oxymoronic, idiotic and primitive.
If one wants to really fight a "War on Terror," one can simply support the unpopular ideology consisting of peace and diplomatic relations. This would certainly at least halve the amount of terrorism occurring in tandem with the United States, as simple logic will grant us. However, it is more likely this would reduce the amount of terrorism in the world by more than ninety-percent, as the American military is rivaled only by a handful of countries in number, if not only a single country – that of China – and unrivaled in technological capability and efficiency.
Terrorism: n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The interesting part about the dictionary definition of terrorism is that one will find every military in the history of the world is guilty of it. There is no exception, and in fact, the United States is one of the most historically prominent with regards to state supported terrorism. Beginning with the eradication of Native Americans, leading up to the present day preemptive/preventative, international-law violating invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and likely soon to be Iran. A "War on Terror" is oxymoronic at best, and at worst simply an uneducated, idiotic, primitive attempt at catalyzing public opinion. Not that it has not been successful, and in this I suppose our fair rulers should be applauded. By successful I of course mean successful in catalyzing public opinion to be in support of horrific acts of murder and destruction, not successful in the sense that the "war" can ever be won. Indeed, it is a well known fact both by American intelligence agencies and general public opinion that the "War on Terror" started in the early 80s has more or less resulted in a heightened risk for American citizens at home and abroad. Even with such facts available to the general public and to our government officials, the "war" continues nonetheless, undeterred. Either this is a sign of the complete incapacity of our officials to use the reasoning faculties granted to them by nature, or it is a sign that they are well aware of what they are doing, and more importantly, do not care that it is oxymoronic, idiotic and primitive.
If one wants to really fight a "War on Terror," one can simply support the unpopular ideology consisting of peace and diplomatic relations. This would certainly at least halve the amount of terrorism occurring in tandem with the United States, as simple logic will grant us. However, it is more likely this would reduce the amount of terrorism in the world by more than ninety-percent, as the American military is rivaled only by a handful of countries in number, if not only a single country – that of China – and unrivaled in technological capability and efficiency.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 07:54 pm (UTC)You've failed to convince me that the invasion of Afghanistan really had anything to do with 9/11. "Al Qaeda" was a formally a US sponsored "freedom fighting" group, used to combat the Russians previously and granted a great deal of the weapons they've used against us by us during that time (if at all, arguably, as many of the people who are fighting Americans in these regions are actually people who don't want us there.)
It doesn't really change the point, we're still performing state-supported Terrorism. A good point Chomsky brings up is that of a 15-year-old Afghan boy who, after having his entire town bombed, the vast majority of his people killed, picks up a gun and starts shooting at American soldiers. They capture him, and there's a lot of ruckus made about whether or not a 15-year-old boy can be tried as a terrorist. What's the problem? If my entire town had been bombed, regardless of the fucking reason, I'd be shooting at the fucking people invading as well.
no subject
Date: 2009-11-20 08:43 pm (UTC)Chomsky is basically saying what I would've a few years ago when this whole thing was fresher in my mind, albeit more succinctly. It's completely accurate, there's absolutely no question from an empirical standpoint. It is the -media- in this case - you know, the individuals claiming that the Afghanistan war was somehow magically related to 9/11 - who failed to have any empirical evidence, other than what Chomsky notes - that for three weeks, the Bush administration said "turn over these individuals, even though -we- don't have any evidence" and then suddenly changed (I remember this, unfortunately, most people don't) to, "we'll bomb you until you change your government" which -is- terrorism, you'll note, as based on the above definition. Coercion of government.