Terrorism: an example of mediapolitics overru
(onix) br polman - 19.08.2004 10:55
summary:
a polemic about the mangled abuse of the word terror,
a reasoning that resistance shouldn't be considered criminal,
the statement that 'moderate anti terrorism can be considered collaboration.
Introduction.
Already for a long time i have been amazed by the ease with what the term
terrorism is widely accepted. I have also been much embarrassed to see so
many a goodwilling people fall for the propaganda.
In the last place I have seen on many occasions radical persons and groups
make what i call: moderate anti terrorism statements.
My intend in writing this is to enable a discussion that will no longer
allow the surpressor to call the victims a criminal.
I hope no longer will the imperialists , the rich and ruling classes,
will make 100000's of ppl die and many more suffer, destining every
resistance criminal.
Historical context.
It used to be that the word terror was reserved for the powerfull
making violent acts against the population. Many a social change ,
for example in south america was a fight against terror.
Black murder brigades eg. Other things that been considered terror are,
razzia's, endlless (pass) controls, intimidation, torture, denial of
professional labour because of political or ideological opinions.
In general police state characteristics, use of the army against
the population, anti democratical violence against protests, secret
service actions directed against individuals.
We never defined police provocation as terror, but the resulting
violence we did.
The word terror finds it's meaning in the word fear. Scaring ppl
from a situation were the power is all on one side was considered
terror.
Now when the 'cold war' period ended, because the socialist states
no longer wanted to risk their people and environment to destruction,
and no longer waste their resources to usefull toys of violence,
it rapidly changed. The word terror got lift out of her context.
(in wich it so often had been usefull to describe when a government
or state commited crimes against her people)..
This first occured to me as a mere imperialisation of progressive ideas.
I can call a few other examples.
Compare.. internationalism - globalisation. flexibility - unsecure labour,
progressive - progressing, boykoting(a company) and denying medical
supplies to children (boykoting through multinationals)
In my opinion this is relevant, it happens a lot that a usefull idea
gets taken out of her context and abused for the needs of an opressor.
ANyway it is not the subject I am directing too.
The subject is not only the 180 degrees turn of the meaning of the word
terror, although the underlying filosofy ' steal even the words of
the movements, so they will have no answer' is important and should be
noted and regarded carefully.
The subject is : the criminalisation of any resistance by a military
and financially all powerfull group. (yes that smells off old fashioned
terror indeed).A group that can easily rule the media, the only power
that can infiltrate in every movement.
If named: the collection of banks, multinationals, and their
representatives the (foremost but not only) governments.
It's in fact such an easy point that i'm not going to waste more words on
it then i already did. Ill just sum up some arguments,
The word terrorism is used to maintain a monopoly of violence.
U can't hurt a navo soldier easily. Their aiming material allows them
to kill at a distance that with kalashnikovs eg. u r not able to see
let alone hit anything. Not only handweapons, also grenades and rockets
can be fired from a long distance with near perfect accuracy and
incredible devastating power.
When coming closer, an US soldier is packed in kevlar bullet and shell
proof material. This is not so, and has never been, for any of their
opponents/victims. This situation allows them to kill 100000's of afghani
or iraqi and brag about the minimal losses it invoked on them.
Herlocopters are aanother example, the helicopter is the weapon developed
against civilians and resistance fighters, its used in conjunction with
radar, infrared, and satelites.
It's able and has been used to put mass
slaughter on afghanis and iraqis, and perhaps many others.
However not only the usians use them, also teh russians have tried
in afghanistan to beat the resistance with helicopters.
However not with carpet bombing, not in the current conjunction
with satelites, and lastly not with that powerfull and modern
helicopters.
Another example, is the bombing of columbia with mines and poisons,
and with purposedly not exploding bombs, in the socalled war on drugs.
a monopoly of violence. In wich however the farmers are depicted criminals.
Summing it all up: The US and their allies (compare israelis palestineans
wich is also a very unequal situation in terms of means for violence)
are nearly invulnerable.
Practically the only thing that hurts them are explosions.
Although their explosives are the better, and the professional.
If someone wants to do anything against the torture of whole populations
by 'economical boykot' if someone wants to revenge, or fight on equal
terms , against these mass murderers, that spend billions on military
weaponry but in the same year let 300000 ppl die in mosambique because
of a flood and hunger. U have no options.
They are dressed in kevlar, guided by cameras and satelites, thoroughly
guarded. About the only thing remaining is blowing them up, (called terrorism)
killing or abducting them when they are with one or two(called terrorism)
grab their handsman, the ones that work for them, because it might slow their
system.(called terrorism). Doing suicide attacks, were any armed resistance
against them is suicide anyhow, (called terrorism) and so on.
Conclusion, abandon the whole concept that resistanc eagainst a military
hegemony and a monopoly of violence can at all be terrorism.
It's not true.
Keep in mind that the death of a million of more iraqi's
(of wich 200-300000 children by boykot alone..)and noone knows how many
afghani, somali, liberians, and so many things noone knows of.
It can never be revenged. 20 million death in vietnam. It can't be revenged..
Anyone acting up against these fascist wasters of energy and resources
earns respect, calling it terrorism is agreeing with the oppresors.
its wielding ur arms to the mass murderers.
I think that is the real crime. to collaborate with the massmurders.
 E-Mail: de_n4da@hotmail.com
|
