Sunday, October 23

Terrorism Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry (or Dyslexic)

Even those in the Bush Whiteheouse have come to realize that their rhetorical confections of Orwellian newspeak, wielded so effectively and effusively, have finally, and forever, fallen upon deaf ears.

Even the corn-fed, Heartland, tobacco-spitting Okies have finally twigged to the Pyrrhic fact that "somethin ain't quite right".

Let's look at Bush Whitehouse words and language:

The term WMD itself was a made up term, a bogus acronym, for there is no such military categorization as WMD -- it's either conventional ordinance that includes bunker-busters and fuel-air bombs, or unconventional (chemical), or strategic (biological and nuclear). "WMD" doesn't delineate, or mean a thing. It just sounds scary.

Strategic weapons are independent delivery systems that play solo roles unlike those weapon systems used in combined arms warfare at a tactical level.

Chemical weapons don't make it to strategic either -- they just aren't efficient enough in killing people, or have large enough "killing yields"; "WMD", as a term, means zero: it's a scare tactic word. Rhetorical. It is meant only for effect and doesn't distinguish weapons systems.

Similar rhetoric that doesn't define, qualify, or delineate includes the term "terrorism".

The word is deployed as a rhetorical garnishment and is sprinkled like salt and pepper over the buttered corn of the Republican faithful.

And while it was said that Winston Churchill marshalled the English language and sent it off to war, the same could be said about Bush; but while Churchill was in the gifted class at school, the Bush version comes from Special Ed.

For Bush, dyslexic rhetoric mirrors both policy and Iraqi strategy. It fits. It reads backwards.

Bush would like all Americans to be dyslexic when it comes perceptions. But there are only so many shorn limbs and body bags you can spin before fighting for Iraqi "freedom" becomes obvious code for "we want you to be a Middle-eastern Puerto Rico".

No one went to Iraq because of "terrorism". The insurgency there now (sans George Washington and King George) is an anti-occupier revolt; and an insurgency is an insurgency is an insurgency (just like Gertrude Stein said about roses). So, simply calling an insurgency "terror", or insurgents themselves "terrorists", is a clumsy attempt to denude the insurrection of its anti-occupier political goals.

Indeed, generally speaking, using the label "terror" connotatively dismisses political goals.

Name me one act of political terror that didn't have political goals? Even Anarchists (eg. the Red Brigades, Baader Meinhoff, etc.) had amorphous, grandiose, and unattainable political goals (crazies like doomsday cults don't count).

But when you really think of "terrorism", what comes to mind are defined peoples with a form of political orientation that uses violent expression and tactic: the IRA, the FLQ, the ETA, the Palestinian groups, The Shining Path, etc.

So where did Saddam fit in?

Other than sending cheques to the Al Aqusa Martyr Brigades Saddam has been a non-existent funder of terrorism (you have to go to our "allies" Saudi Arabia for that).

Moreover, Saddam has been a sworn enemy of religious fanatics and fundamentalists.

The Baathist regime itself that Saddam ruled for decades was modelled after Nasser's Pan- Arab Egyptian socialism, a political form derived from Europe.

Secularism, not fanaticism, was a hallmark of Saddam. Women could even drive cars in Saddam's Bagdhad -- and they still can't in Riyad.

Simply put, Saddam was never a state sponsor of terror.

Libya's Khaddafi certainly was, (Pan AM 103 over Lockerbie, a French Airliner over Chad, etc.) Yet, Libya, in another Orwellian twist, is now a Western ally! All is forgiven!

Saudi Arabia has actively funded Al Queda, yet no one invades there. In point of fact, American officials cover up 9/11
linkage.

Bush calls the invasion of Iraq a war on terror now because Iraq has become his "Bay of Pigs".

Like Cuba in the 60's, the good guys have landed but the peasantry didn't flock to them, or greet them as liberators either.

Because the Good Guys never were liberators.

So what else should the Bush folks call those ungrateful Iraqi bastards anyway, except for "terrorists"?

Surely not "freedom fighters".

That term is taken.

And In dyslexic terms, God is dog.

-ak

Visit T.O. Talk to discuss this commentary:
http://www.totalk.ca/viewtopic.php?t=1447