Taken from a friends Live Journal. Just thought it would be interesting reading, or bashing.Webster's unabriged defines a terrorist as: "A person, usually a member of a group, that advocates terrorism.
Terrorism it defines as: "1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce especially for political purposes. 2. The state of fear produced by terrorism or terrorization.
It defines Awe as: 1. an overwhelming feeling of reverence, admiration, fear, ect produced by that which is grand sublime or extremely powerful, or the like 2. Power to inspire fear or reverence. 3. Fear or dread
It defines Shock as: 1. A sudden or violent blow or impact; collision. 2. A sudden or violent distubance or commotion. 3. a sudden or violent disturbance of the mind, emotions, or sensibilities.
And just so we're not splitting hairs it defines terror as: 1. Intense, sharp, overmastering fear 2. an instance or cause of intense fear or anxiety; quality of causing terror 3. any period of frightful violence likened to the reign of terror in France 4. Violence or threats of violence used for intimidation, coercion.
George Bush has promised to land three thousand bombs on Iraq in just a couple of days in a campaign of "shock and awe". Or in other words he will use a sudden, violent disturbance and fear (somehow, I don't think he's going for the reverence part of awe.) to accomplish what is almost universally agreed to be a political objective. I believe that in his own words the bombing campaign will leave Iraq in intense fear. So I ask you who is the terrorist—by simple definition?
It doesn’t take a political leftist like me to point out that “terrorist” is the new vilifying watchword of the American government along with un-American and “axis of evil”, (which, even though everyone thought was just about the stupidest thing they’d ever heard, still is somehow being used). Thrown around like a Frisbee at the company picnic, the word has started to have only the emotive force of evil. We gleefully envision A-rab radicals that Arnold would be beating to a pulp if he could.
But what is a terrorist really? Taken from its recent decade or so of context it is a fairly inert word. Those that inspire terror through violence for political ends. And how many of the criteria we use to judge those evil terrorists can we see reflected in our own actions over the past months.
The media is quick to vilify the suicide bomber who kills a civilian or a child in their wake, but we are dropping three thousand bombs on a nation with fifteen year olds or younger as over fifty percent of it’s population, and the general statement is that collateral damage is unavoidable irregardless of how precise we try to make the hits. If our missiles can go over the Iraqi boarder into Iran (which a few have) then do you really think that they will always hit the exact building that they’re supposed to? These kids are going to die in droves. What does that say about us? We have done this without UN approval, thumbing our noses, even treating with contempt, any and all who try to suggest an alternative to violence. What does that say about us?
Who is the terrorist?
There’s no doubt in any mind—including my own—that on September 11th, 2001 the men that drove three planes into each of the world trade center towers and the pentagon, respectively, were terrorists. But now our government is driving several thousand times more destructive power into buildings in Iraq.
Is our end objective political? Are there hookers in north Hollywood? Even those in relative support of our action in Iraq acknowledge that this isn’t about good and evil. It might be about vengeance. It certainly seems to be somewhat about oil. But if we want to take WMD out of the hands of dangerous men, there are quite a few stops we need to consider before Iraq.
So who is the terrorist?
Despite the fact that in GW’s *own* words Iraq does not pose an imminent threat, and the attack is illegal under international law. (He capitulated this point logically when he said that Iraq may pose a danger five years out. Folks that’s not imminent, and that makes a “preemptive” attack illegal under international law.) Despite the fact that weapons inspectors couldn’t find a shred of *conclusive* evidence that WMD were being made. Despite the fact that no reasonable link to Al-Qeda can be made. Despite the fact that other nations are plummeting in their respect for anything we may have once stood for. Despite all this, we attack.
/shrug
