What the prevailing Washington think tanks will not
acknowledge is the reality that you can't declare war on an abstract
noun. You can declare war on personal pronouns (embodied, sentient
beings), but not a noun. |
If Jack and Jill climb a hill and Jack steals a bucket
of water from Jill, Jill doesn't get mad at the act of stealing. She
gets mad at Jack. |
So why such enormous efforts placed into what could
be construed as psychological indoctrination to lead the public down
the path of a false premise? Quite obviously there is a sinister rationale
by the Bush administration (whose ideology depends on fear and intimidation)
that also depends on keeping the concept of "terrorism" eternally
abstract. |
The advantage is that a noun is chameleon-like, able
to change form and substance, appearance and meaning at the drop of
a hat - i.e., in response to the day's political agenda. |
It's a scenario of Jill knowing Jack stole her bucket
but then letting him go while deciding to hate everyone else resembling
Jack - via political/religious affiliation, in manner of dress, business
circles, friendships, or where one travels abroad. Compare Bush letting
Bin Laden go and then hating (declaring war on) everyone else resembling
him. He frees the real Bin Laden and creates "thousands" of Bin Ladens
at the same time. It's also akin to not recognizing nuclearized nations
(e.g., North Korea) while fearing nuclear terrorism (in the abstract).
What could be better for the "war on terror?" |
The given pretext of "keeping flexible" with terrorism
is of course being able to identify the many disguises terrorists
use. But the truth, as usual, is the other way around. |
If the US caught all of Al Qaeda tomorrow absolutely
nothing would change - except the definition of terrorism. And with
each re-definition the burden of innocence simply lurks closer and
closer to home, finally on "us" (as we are all "suspect" according
to the Patriot Act). Eventually "terrorism" becomes anything that
opposes the government. It becomes a world defined by neo-conservatives
who are a) predisposed to distrusting in the first place, and b) cannot
exist without a projection of "evil" eternally lurking about, like
Satan himself.. |
Hence the advantage of keeping the nation's #1 arch-enemy
safely abstruse and untouchable - until its time to cherry-pick "it"
through the aperture of a person or group affiliation. It is also
the reason the entire world sees itself "judged" by this administration
as a "terrorist stronghold." Bush has virtually the entire globe swimming
inside a cauldron of pre-stirred, hyphenated stereotypes. No wonder
the US is the target of such "blowback" from every direction.
|
Bottom line: The problem of ending terrorism as officially
defined is futile. It is designed to never end since it will simply
leap from one form to another, ad infinitum (to the delight of those
who profit from this - politicians, prisons, private paramilitary
groups, drug enforcement agencies, war merchants, religious fanatics,
etc). We're brainwashed to see terrorism "out there" versus within
our own mind-frames, our attitudes, and in the rhetoric/spin that
perpetuates it. |
For anyone truly wishing to end terrorism the problem
is, as always, one of perception. In fact it's easier to see this
entire self-serving framework as a "terrorist stronghold" itself manufactured
inside the boardrooms and think tanks of Washington every day. Getting
a realistic grasp of the real roots of terrorism is the first step
to ending it. |
|