Monday, November 10, 2003
Yeah so it wasn't PC, but at least they would tell us who the enemy was back then.
Now, our leaders can hide behind the word "terrorist". That's who we're at war with. Of course, this is beside the point, but we’re not even really at war. Congress has made no such declaration, as only they have the constitutional right to do. This “war” that is spoken of is ethereal, no more real than the “War on Drugs” or the “War on Poverty. Domestically, this might as well be the “War on Liberty”. That’s easy enough to see. But internationally, there’s a problem. Since we ARE in conflict abroad, it’s obvious to the ignorant masses that we must be at war.
But who is the enemy? Our great leaders bellow back, “The evil-doers! The Terrorists!” Hmm…there’s that word again. But what does it truly mean? Terrorism is usually defined like this: Anyone who uses terror to reach a social, political, or material end. I’m paraphrasing Webster here, but that’s a close facsimile. If you feel I may be incorrect, feel free of course to check the dictionary yourself. Quite a broad swath of people to be at war with, no? That puts us at war, then, with every criminal in the U.S. For after all, what is a hold up man doing if not using fear (terror) to get money/goods/etc (material ends)? To that we must add all the rival paramilitary groups and pseudo-governments in Central and South America. Do they not inflict terror in horrible ways to gain power? Murdering parents in front of their children, video taping these acts, and then using them to demonstrate their power/skill/insanity/whatever. Is that not terrorism? Perhaps we can add the Chinese government to this list as well. There are many well-documented cases of the Chinese leaders using deadly force and illegal incarceration to squelch dissent. Is this not terrorism?
To this, the administration has nothing to say. But their silence fills books. The fact alone that we are not in any way going after the above mentioned terrorists shows us that our leaders are not interested in a war against all terrorists. And of course they aren’t. Such a notion would be bizarre and impossible. But why use such broad jargon to explain why our men and women must fight and die? Why is the truth not brought into the light?
Continued in the next installment.