Web www.theriverman.blogspot.com

Wednesday, December 17, 2003

Terrorism and war, what are we really talking about

This is just a repost of my previous to parts of this essay. I've reposted them together and in the correct order simply to aid your reading and make it look more like an actual essay.

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?

On September 11th, 2001 two tall buildings were struck down in New York. You may, in fact, remember this. It was in most of the papers. I am tempted, now, to delve into the many questions and conspiracy theories regarding this event. However, I’m afraid it would give the affect of demeaning my credibility and, as well, it is not necessary to make my points.

As far as anyone can say, airplanes were used by Middle Eastern men in their 20’s and 30’s to bring down the Twin Towers. The Medelin Cartel was not involved. The IRA was not involved. It would seem to me that there is one type of terrorist we are looking at here. That, of course, is the Islamist animal. I call members of this type animals, for they are not men.

Today in northern Iraq two of our men from the 101st Airborne were gunned down as they drove through town in their vehicle. The details are sketchy, but whether alive or dead after the bullets, people came and slit their throats. Their bodies were dragged out of the humvee. They lay on the ground, dead and bleeding. This, of course, is not enough for the "terrorists." The bodies of these two soldiers were beaten with concrete blocks. Their faces crushed beyond recognition. One man had a foot severed. The truck and the bodies were looted. Shoes, guns, clothes, a couple of CD’s. Whatever these creatures could grab, they did.

The Nazis were not nice people. They pillaged and tortured and murdered. But we can at least see that they had an agenda. They used these tactics to gain material and slaves to bring more power to their empire and to help them defeat there enemies. Their acts can not be excused, but they can be understood.

The actions of the creatures we are fighting can not be so understood. From the instant murder of thousands in New York, to the slow killing of those two men in Mosul, these "terrorists" seem to kill for no reason other than their own bloodlust. Such a creature can no longer be called a terrorist now, now that there is no goal that is attempting to be reached here, other than simply killing. Murder. Destruction. No, we are not at war against terrorists. We are at war against every Allah praising animal in this world of ours. But this is of course not PC-enough for our handlers to admit. It must remain “The Terrorists.�

The words Islam, Muslim, even Arab, never show up in the vapid indictments our president makes against our enemies. Yet the truth screams to be heard. Our troops are not being dismembered by atheists or ultra-fundamentalist Christians such as the Nazis were. Our friends and sons and daughters are not dying at the hands of the communists as we were once afraid they might. Our people are being killed by ignorant animalistic third-world coyotes.

Before I go any further, let me state that this is not a full condemnation of Islam. I am not a Muslim. I have though, unlike most Americans I would wager, actually read most of the Koran. I studied Islam shortly from a scholarly and historical light, as I also studied many other religions. (And just for the record, the common notion that “Islam� means peace is at best a half-truth, the better translation is "complete submission to the will of Allah". The assumption being that peace is acquired only after this.) Is this a religion of only bloodthirsty dogs? No, of course not. Neither is every republican a slave to the corporate empire. But the fact remains that our enemies here ARE driven by a very widespread interpretation of the Koran and its appendictic literature. Why is it impossible for this to be addressed by our leaders? I honestly don’t know. I assume that they are trying to look tolerant and world-wise, but at what price?

More to follow

Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com Is my Blog HOT or NOT?