Politics: Terrorism 101
By sole
I know it's programmed all over the news, thrown across the paper headlines
and bubbling out of your self-loathing neighbor's mouth--lets call him
Joe--that those fucking terrorists are tearing this world apart. Well
you know what, fuck Joe. Maybe a crash course in Special Ed American History
might jog Joe's memory a little more, Corky as a tutor could work, but
might it actually be possible that this "terrorism" we're at war with is
our fault?
First off, violence is violence, be it covered in a suit, a turban, in
the name of patriotism or terrorism, there is no difference in my opinion.
I certainly can't condone the killing of innocent civilians, well-- let
me rephrase that. I don't condone the killing of innocent people as long
as they're not too fucking retarded to see past a whitewashed foreign image
and only aid the constant cycle of fear mongering. That stubbornly ignorant
populace's genocide might be a cause worth seeking out, but I'll digress
my contempt for the "intellectually abstinent" crowd; I just think if you're
a fucking dunce hat on the short side of a dumb stick you're better off
in the grave than in a fucking voting booth, or just society in general.
Let's however try and make one thing clear--in my opinion civilian casualties
are often a byproduct of a larger goal propagated by terrorist organizations.
People who bomb busses and go to Pizza Hut with a suitcase of C-4 with
the sole intention of killing civilians aren't terrorists, they're mass
murderers. Hopefully I can delve more into this difference before I get
thrown in the internet equivalent of Guantanamo.
There are themes that play out through the decades, like war and drugs
in the 60s, communism and the WAR on drugs in the 70s and 80s, the internet
revolution in the 90s, and now we get a nice supersized serving of turban
wearing terrorism in the big double 0s. But lets go back a few more decades--
say around circa 1700s. I wonder if our wig wearing, slave peddling, dope
smoking founding fathers were considered terrorists in their days. My,
how things have changed. ? ? ?
I get so sick of this massively hypocritical "off with your head" mentality
we project onto "terrorists" when my government (USA) is the biggest terrorist
organization in the fucking world. We've toppled regimes, covertly overthrown
countries, installed puppet leaders, killed more civilians than Al Qaeda
can shake a sand dune at, and even invaded sovereign nations totally unprovoked.
Like our cause is more righteous when it's only self-serving, like our
action is warranted when it's uneccessary, and like our vision is for the
better when we fail to see the vision of the people who bear witness to
ours. Do we not kill innocent people? Do we not instill fear into the
hearts of innocent civilians with our gung-ho foreign policies? Do we
not use our might as a threat just like these terrorists use their stealth?
There's a contempt world wide for America, and it didn't just pop out of
the sand and onto your TV screen on 9/11. This pot has been stirring for
over 60 years stemming from a foreign policy driven by personal gain and
capitalism, though I may be bordering on redundancy there. You can only
push people so far until they push back, and much like we found a way to
push in the 1700's, others are finding more modern ways to push, and unfortunately
violence is just about the only way to be heard in this era if you want
to make a point or take a stand. I hate innocent deaths resulting from
acts of war just as much as the next guy, but more than that, I hate the
reasons why these people have motives to carry out such acts. I'm sick
of scapegoating the terrorists as the scourge of the earth, and I'm sick
of the word terrorist. Period. That is unless we agree to acknowledge
our own government's label as terrorists, which brings me to the all important
question..
Who are the real terrorists? Who are the real patriots? I suppose it
depends on which side of the fence you're on, or what you're looking at.
I suppose terrorism is a bit like beauty in that it rests in the eye of
the beholder which I find pretty ironic. Our terrorist is another man's
patriot, and let us not be so jaded to think that these people are blind
in their hate. These people are tired of being oppressed, robbed, and
stepped over because we have nothing to gain from them, or what we do have
to gain we just take. They're sick of the hypocrisy, they're sick of Israel,
they're sick of Palestine, and they're fucking sick of America's capitalistic
magic wand. Is that so different than being sick of taxation without representation
and those goddamn Redcoats raping men's wives? Yet we revere the men who
stood up against that oppression and granted them the highest honor a country
can bestow a citizen; a patriot.
Before you think I'm all buddy buddy with the turban wearing camel jockey
terrorist crew, I just want to say that I detest anyone who commits an
act of violence--especially in the name of religion-- but under any circumstances,
period. I'm not taking sides, I'm trying to remove the bias that somehow
our cause is more righteous, or the blood we spill is somehow more beneficial
to the world. It's not, and until we stop asking the question of "WHO
FUCKING DID IT" and ask the more important question of "WHY DID THEY DO
IT" I don't see any real progress ever being made. It's like asking WHY
is out of the fucking question. When was the last time you saw Peter Jennings
or some other chair jockey motherfucker stateside asking WHY we were being
attacked, or anyone for that matter? It's all about WHO did it, WHERE
are they, and HOW many died? If they even delve into the question of
why it usually gets scapegoated onto religious fundamentalism, which actually
might be the case sometimes, and sometimes not. Who fucking knows? Not
me. WHY? GOOD FUCKING QUESTION.
So how do we end this shit? That's another really good question, and it
depends on who you ask I suppose. We could stay the course of "world conformity,"
I mean it didn't quite work out for the nazis but our approach is a little
more digestible so maybe we'll get "lucky". We could go back to Isolationism
like most of Europe, but I really don't think you can piss a whole bunch
of people off and go home and expect everything to be hunky dory, so bad
idea. Maybe we could become "terrorists" ourselves and take our fucking
country back. Your guess is as good as mine, but it's our bed even though
we didn't make the son of a bitch (a hearty fuck you to the powers that
be, have been, and will be) and I guess we're going to sleep in it.
Sweet dreams.
Comments on "Politics: Terrorism 101"
-
A former member wrote:
war is a money maker; only the war lords benefit from it. who sells the weapons? who oversees the handout of money for both sides? set aside any mickey mouse perspective and think about the REAL motives behind this war. Bush said right off the bat.....
-
On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
look at film footage of the countless millions of vietnam war protestors (almost all of voting age)...."We the people" my ass..
-
On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
US Navy Intelligence intercepted and decoded a Japanese communique regarding an aerial/kamikaze assault on Pearl Harbor well in advance..FDR had been trying to get Congress to declare war on Nazi Germany for quite some time...
-
On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
...but was unsuccesful. He knew that if the Japanese were succesful in their "surprise" attack congress would be forced to relent and declare war...thus we entered WWII. But why?
-
On Tuesday, January 18, 2005, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
It wasn't to stop Germany. To repeat B_Dead: "War is a money maker." and if it wasn't for Pearl Harbor and WWII the Great Depression would've continued raged onward.
-
A former member wrote:
that this would be a war on many levels, and would span many decades. who's fighting their war? the unwilling are. watch the news, people are initiating shoot outs with cops just so they dont have to go back overseas and fight.
-
A former member wrote:
i stand at your side, sole. may we all rally to the same flag when the spark begins the war here at home. The one mistake is that people wage war with blood-letting weapons against the masters of war. fighting fire with fire only ends in burning corpses
-
On Saturday, June 19, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
False pretenses is entirely the issue. Iraq didn't have WMDs, though we were told they did, that's a false pretense if I've ever heard one. Let me ask one question, who has gained the most from this war?
-
On Saturday, June 19, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
It certainly hasn't been the Iraqi people, and "terrorism" is actually increasing moreso than we thought it would. However, weapons manufacturers like Lockheed Martin and oil companies like Halliburton are making a nice dollar. Draw your own conclusion.
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
I disagree... false pretenses arent the issue. The issue is that its easier for the people to see that it would benefit corporate america than to see the solution to issues. Its a cop out and an excuse to complain. But I cant rant on here any more. You ca
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
You can msg me on msn at made_of_glass@hotmail.com and we can talk... it'd be cool. Later. -Glass
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
We overthrew the most secular nation in the muslim world, because we wanted it to be more Jeffersonian? If you're righteous about democracy, how about starting in Saudi Arabia? Bush wanted a war, corporations wanted money, and Iraq was an easy target
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
Where did I ever say that if we had left the world alone everything would be hunky dory. I'm in favor of righting the wrongs of the world, but I'm not in favor of doing it under false pretenses, corporate greed, and moralistic mayhem.
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
And how do you know Al Quaeda attacked because of religion? Because Peter Jennings told you? Taking out the foremost symbol of capitalistic trade (world trade center) sounds more like an act of political opposition than religious finaticism
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
Indirectly waging war on Palestine: Israel wages war with Palestine everyday, and regularly takes out Hamas leaders because they're "terrorists" (even though Hamas is about the equivalent in Palestine as the Red Cross is here, with an added militia).
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
Do you honestly think Israel, that small scape of land surrounded by an entire muslim world could function without out pocket funding? Who do you think manufactures and sells them Apaches? Israel would cripple without our backing.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
But first I have to say this... indirectly waging war on palestine??? Hmmm... that would be an interesting argument, I think.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
And I sound like I am talking in circles... if this were a two way conversation... I think I could make you understand what I'm saying. But I'll stop for right now. And you can DPmail me and we'll talk.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
completely the scenario.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
But what gets to me about your rant here... is that you state what you see as the problem (which i could even disagree on some of that) and yet, the solution is left blank. Why? Because you havent got one. And neitehr do I. And I think its ridiculous to t
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
think that we could or even would do anything any better.
-
On Friday, June 18, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
I gave my input on solutions, re-read the last paragraph. Bluntly it states, there is no solution. The ball is rolling, it's a matter of playing itself out now. If there ever is a solution, I'll be surprised if anyone is alive to see it.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
Ok. I didnt mean to sound so harsh either. I doubt that you are naive. But... it seems to me that your lack of solution makes it a little... hard to digest.
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
is it up to sole to present you with a solution or are you perhaps capable of doing that for yourself....and naive? the cia has been meddling in the middle east for quite some time now...how do you think saddam became president?
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, Jedi_MindFuck
(241) wrote:
why do you think the US is in iraq right now? to set up another puppet government from which the US will benefit. i hate to tell you glass...you're the one that's a bit naive. ///Jedi\\\
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
It seems to say that you think that if America left people alone... the world would be fine. If we left them alone... they wouldnt bomb us (though the bombings were because of religion and not because we were raiding them or occupying them or had really d
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
done something wrong in their country.) I'm not naive enough to believe that its that simple... but i'm so blind as to say that it was all America's fault. It seems to be the growing trend to say we are bullies blah blah blah...
-
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
And even if we were in Iraq for Geaorge Bush's own personal agenda... we didnt go over there and take over the country. We're working on their own government... by their people and for their people... (once again, not so naive as to believe thats complete
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
I don't ignore the freedom of speech I was given, matter of fact, that's the whole point of the editorial. Why do I have this freedom of speech? Because people were tired of being looked over, and oppressed. Much like we look over other countries and o
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
over other countries and oppress them with needless sanctions (Iraq) and indirectly wage war on Palestine (pocket funding Israel anyone?). Others are tired of being oppressed too, but they're "terrorists"? Where's the consistency?
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
I appreciate your candidness, and I would even agree I stretch some facts a bit to get the larger point across, but naive? Hardly. If you want to debunk the naivity feel free, even if you need to rant. Implying I'm naive and not elaborating is hardly
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
fair to me or you. I'm fairly educated in world history and moreso in poli-sci so I don't know what you mean by "somewhat informed." It's an editorial with some clear facts in it from which I draw a conclusion, if you disagree with that conclusion t
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
that's your opinion, but eluding I'm somehow novice in my writing is clearly not the case. The point, is the word "terrorist," the stigma attached to it, and the subsequent hypocrisy of the word everytime our leaders speak of it. I hope my candor di
-
On Monday, June 14, 2004, sole
(93) wrote:
didn't come across too brash, and I'd encourage you to stand up for what you think as well.
-
On Sunday, June 13, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
Well written, well worded... somewhat informed even. But I think... despite your attempt to be a realist... you're rather naive. Without a rant of my own, I can't explain, but I'm glad you stand up for what yo believe. Thats nice.
-
On Sunday, June 13, 2004, glasshouse
(530) wrote:
Way to use your freedom of speech... ignoring that it was granted you by your dope smoking, slave peddling, wig wearing founding fathers. Hmm... Theres something to think about, eh? -Glass
-
On Friday, June 4, 2004, Mute Serenade
(389) wrote:
That was a brutal eargasm.... right on sole... it was a strong essay and a damn good one at that. Sue Zen