Defining "terrorists"
The San Antonio newspaper today had a headline decrying the terrorists in Iraq that are shooting at the US military. How lopsided propoganda always is.
I do believe there are terrorists in this world. The Saudi Arabians who flew airplanes into buildings on September 11 were, no question in my mind, terrorists. They attacked a foreign country with the aim of spreading terror among the population.
In many ways it worked, with the propoganda machine set up by the Bush administration. Very few people I speak with remember that the terrorists who used airplanes as bombs - a mechanism that our government was well aware of several years before (see Oliver North circa 1998) - were, in truth, Saudi Arabian. Saudi Arabia is our "ally", so we sure as heck couldn't attack them. So, utilizing a well-oiled propoganda machine, Americans were led to believe, almost en-masse, that it was Afghanistan attacking the US.
When that ploy was shown not to work too well, Saddam Hussein, who had been previously demonized, became an easy target . Now, people I talk with, from a highly educated school principal, to a doctor, to an unemployed school crossing guard, believe that Iraq was the country that attcked the US on September 11. Even when Bush was forced to admit he had no evidence, his tongue was so deep in his cheek that watchers believed he was trying to tell us he knew something we didn't. All part of the propoganda game.
The point is, there were terrorists, and as long as there is oppression in the world, there will be terrorists. But we should not use that word as lightly as it's being used today in The San Antonio newspaper. The people of Iraq who are fighting the incursion of American troops into their country can by no means be defined as terrorists. If one were to apply the term that loosely, then the only terrorists in Iraq today would be the American troops. We need to be careful not to water-down terms that have specific meanings or it will come back to slap us in the future.
I do believe there are terrorists in this world. The Saudi Arabians who flew airplanes into buildings on September 11 were, no question in my mind, terrorists. They attacked a foreign country with the aim of spreading terror among the population.
In many ways it worked, with the propoganda machine set up by the Bush administration. Very few people I speak with remember that the terrorists who used airplanes as bombs - a mechanism that our government was well aware of several years before (see Oliver North circa 1998) - were, in truth, Saudi Arabian. Saudi Arabia is our "ally", so we sure as heck couldn't attack them. So, utilizing a well-oiled propoganda machine, Americans were led to believe, almost en-masse, that it was Afghanistan attacking the US.
When that ploy was shown not to work too well, Saddam Hussein, who had been previously demonized, became an easy target . Now, people I talk with, from a highly educated school principal, to a doctor, to an unemployed school crossing guard, believe that Iraq was the country that attcked the US on September 11. Even when Bush was forced to admit he had no evidence, his tongue was so deep in his cheek that watchers believed he was trying to tell us he knew something we didn't. All part of the propoganda game.
The point is, there were terrorists, and as long as there is oppression in the world, there will be terrorists. But we should not use that word as lightly as it's being used today in The San Antonio newspaper. The people of Iraq who are fighting the incursion of American troops into their country can by no means be defined as terrorists. If one were to apply the term that loosely, then the only terrorists in Iraq today would be the American troops. We need to be careful not to water-down terms that have specific meanings or it will come back to slap us in the future.
posted by Cholla Needles | 10:47 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home