Tuesday's election had nothing to do with terrorists

The vapor trail of some kind of energy, gathered by Firsty for your reading pleasure
Post Reply
User avatar
firsty
Posts: 1050
Joined: September 9th, 2004, 12:25 pm
Location: here
Contact:

Tuesday's election had nothing to do with terrorists

Post by firsty » November 14th, 2006, 2:19 pm

George W. Bush felt it necessary, following last Tuesday's elections, to tell the terrorists not to be joyous about the outcome.

I've seen more than a few editorial cartoons expressing similar sentiments — that the terrorists saw a victory last week when the Democrats took control of Congress.

The funny thing is, we havent been fighting terrorists since 2002, when we effectively ended our campaign in Afghanistan.

If you'd like, the insurgents in Iraq are using "terrorism" to fight American troops there.

But thats not really what we're talking about, what most intelligent people are talking about, when we talk about "terrorism."

If you disagree, you should ask Londoners who lived under the cloud of terrorism for 20 years.

Or you can ask survivors of one of the two attacks on New York City's World Trade Center.

Or, check out the Christmas Eve churchgoers in Indonesia.

Or the children in Beslan, Russia.

Those were terrorist attacks. In addition to coordinated attacks on tanks and troops in Iraq, insurgents are staging suicide attacks every day as a way to strike fear into Iraqi citizens or, if you want to be dramatic about it, simply to try to wipe one or another Islamic sect from the map.

A Democratically controlled Congress does absolutely nothing for the aim of the insurgents in Iraq.

On its surface — fewer troops would mean less resistance to suicide attacks. And fewer troops would mean an even more poorly trained and maintained national police force in Iraq. Again — less resistance.

The insurgents arent engaging in terrorism in Iraq for any of the reasons that other people (who also happen to be brown-skinned and Islamic, in case you need things simplified) who attacked the U.S. with terrorism had. We were attacked on 9/11 for our capitalist insurgency into the Middle East, our military presence in Saudi Arabia, and our war by proxy against the Palestinians, via Israel, which engages in even more secretive and questionable methods for its own gains.

So, are we really serious that "the terrorists" are "rejoicing" about the outcome of our most recent national democratic event?

We're engaged in a so-far 5-year "War on Terror." The nations defined as terrorist nations or those harboring terrorists, at least the top three, comprise the "Axis of Evil." Even in World War II, the Axis nations were just that — The Axis Powers. According to Wikipedia, it was Benito Mussolini who first used the term "Axis" to describe his alliance with Germany. Of course, Benito invented another word as well: Fascism. But lets save the misapplication of that other word for another article.

Bush turned the Axis term from WWII into another of his vague enemies: The Axis of Evil. He could have chosen, "The Alliance of Evil," and it would have meant the same thing. But he didnt. He chose "Axis" because any nation defined as being in an "Axis" is immediately an enemy of the United States, because we are stupid and do best with easy word associations.

But he didnt stop there. He defined this Axis as: Evil. Why? Because he was against it.

First of all, the term "Axis," as used to describe Iraq, Iran and N. Korea, is completely inaccurate. Iran and Iraq were never aligned, officially or otherwise. The only thing which linked the two was their opposition to U.S. policies. If that were really used as the criteria for being in the Axis of Evil, the Axis itself would be fucking enormous. Why? Because U.S. policy is based on word associations, propaganda and exploitation. I'm against those things, too. I guess I'm in the Axis of Evil.

Or, I would be, if only "Axis" was used to convey its actual meaning. But we're not talking actual meanings here. We're talking word associations.

It's incredibly arrogant to define all opposition, or even opposition of a certain (vaguely definable) kind, as "Evil." I mean, what is worse than evil? And who in their right mind could possibly oppose efforts to rid the world of "evil"? Why, that would be unthinkable!

According to George W. Bush, and we're about three imprecisely applied words deep now, that would be Terrorism!

So when we hear that "the terrorists" have won a victory via the Democrat's winning majorities in both houses of Congress, we are experiencing another, equally meaningless, word association. Ooo. The terrorists won. While an illogical leap, it sounds scary and it sounds like it could be true. Why? Because we're stupid.

Are we, though? Are we really so dumb that we are frightened by certain terror-happy individuals who are trying to associate Democrats with Terrorists? Even though not we're not even fighting "terror" anymore. And that we have somehow managed to <b>increase</b> the level of "evil" contained within the borders of Iraq.

Tuesday's Democratic victory was a victory for democracy. The same kind of democratic victory that put Hamas into power. The same kind which put Bush into power. The same kind which Bush has touted as progress in Iraq.

But when things dont go "our" way ("our" defined as those of us who oppose "evil," of course), we're not so thrilled about the Democratic process. We say "the terrorists won".

Why?

Because that is a lot easier than admitting that a large population, made up of our friends and neighbors, believe that we are engaged in faulty policies. Wow. Thats was a pretty easy sentence to write. It may not be as powerful as "Axis," or "Evil," or "Terrorists," (and much longer), but it was vastly more meaningful.

Here is Hyperdictionary's definition of "terror":

1. [n] a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
2. [adj] characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"

Hm. If I'm inclined to believe, as I am, that Bush and his buddies are saying that the terrorists won in an effort to re-shift support from the Democrats to the Republicans, I would have to say that they are using terror and fear for political gain.

That makes George W. Bush and his ilk terrorists, using a <b>real</b> definition of terrorists, not fake definitions like those with contributed to the "Axis of Evil" and the "War on Terror," both of which were widely supported by much of the American public until, apparently and hopefully, last Tuesday.

What the election really <b>did</b> accomplish, I guess, is to further expose those who really believe that everything not in the best interests of the United States governmental corporate bureaucracy is evil.

And for that, we should not be afraid. Except to the extent that you could be living next to someone who wants to put you in the Axis of Evil for playing your music too loud.

We really shouldnt be scared right now. We should be happy. Democracy worked, again, right? Hey, just ask Uncle Donald, who said, "Democracy is messy." And when we're surrounded by such oil-fueled greed, democracy in America is bound to be some of the messiest you've ever seen.

So when crazy right wing numbskulls tell you that you've supported the terrorists, hold your head high. Remember: They're using fake definitions. They dont mean "terror" like the dictionary means "terror." They mean it in another way, as in, "dissent."

And if they claim that we are guilty of association by opposing Bush in the way they perceive their "terrorists" to oppose Bush, remember: Their entire modus operandi is easy and incorrect word associations. They might as well be calling us "Lockjaws" or "Flat Tires".

And, please, W et al, dont lets talk about guilt by association, eh? The next time your president goes strolling through the garden holding hands with a leader of the country which raised most of the 9/11 hijackers, you should reconsider your MO. At some point, people are going to realize that the words you so gleefully throw around in your ignorant rants have totally different meanings than what you pretend. And by that time, you had better hope you havent convinced us that a "War on Terror" is really necessary. Otherwise, we're going to have to start bombing you with some very serious shit.

Like dictionaries.

You could use one.
and knowing i'm so eager to fight cant make letting me in any easier.

[url=http://stealthiswiki.nine9pages.com]Steal This Book Vol 2[/url]

[url=http://www.dreamhost.com/r.cgi?26032]Get some hosting![/url]

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 20605
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepLace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » November 14th, 2006, 2:44 pm

So when crazy right wing numbskulls tell you that you've supported the terrorists, hold your head high. Remember: They're using fake definitions. They dont mean "terror" like the dictionary means "terror." They mean it in another way, as in, "dissent."
Otherwise, we're going to have to start bombing you with some very serious shit.

Like dictionaries.


Yeah lets use them bunker buster dictionaries like the O.E.D.
Or you can ask survivors of one of the two attacks on New York City's World Trade Center.
Go ask a Marine.

{put link here asap}

Post Reply

Return to “Remnants of Madness”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests