RTP Discussions

This is the discussion zone for matters related to in which I try to argue that Terrorism is no more and no less than a standard military strategem which has been practised for, at least, centuries, probably millenia. It is routinely used as a "bogey" word by Authoritarians in what can only be described as an unintelligent attempt to manipulate their populations with moralistic propaganda. Often, as is most clearly demonstrable in the case of the recent American reaction to 9-11, the actions of those Authoritarians, in the guise of "self defence" against the terrorist attack, is considerably more evil than the act which sparked their reaction.

"Terrorism" is simply a word used to denote an overwhelmingly dangerous but unspecified threat. It can be used as a rallying cry; "Down with terrorism" or in a number of other ways. In my youth the equivalent word in the west was "commie" or "communist". Nobody knew what a commie was - but everyone knew that commies threatened our freedom and our way of life. We had no idea at all just how commies did this. And we had no idea who they were except for those our government named as communists - Russians, Cubans, Chinese, etc. It was popular to call anyone who disagreed with you on political or religious matters, a 'commie.' It too was a word used to rally people, "Better dead than red" (a "red" being a commie), was a popular slogan.

It has been known for a long time that it is fairly easy to rally the support of the population in the face of an enemy attack. Clever leaders have discovered that it is nearly as easy to rally the population - for a time - with 'commies' or 'terrorists' as the supposed attackers. Constant repetitious use of the chosen word lets governments abrogate laws and commit atrocious acts of barbarism against "terrorists" and/or sympathizers, foreign or domestic.

In recent years America's definition of Freedom has become, "Freedom exists when we Americans are free to do as we wish and everyone else is free to do as we tell them." Anyone who disagrees with this is a terrorist.

(There ya go! I've defined both freedom and terrorist for ya. See how nice I am to you?)

Greetings scribblerlarry
and welcome on board

As you might guess, I'm not inclined to argue with your observations!

The only comment I would make is that the Terrorism bogey word is more sinister and dishonest than the "commie". Not least because, as I've spelt out in the essay, what governments (and, in particular, the American government) get up to frequently includes precisely the kind of Terrorist activities they seek to condemn, but on a scale which dwarfs those they choose to call Terrorists. That's a criticism which cannot legitimately be made about their previous historical bogeys - even though some of today's more delusional right-wing libertarians tend to refer to virtually any State functions funded by taxation as "Communism". Such claims on their part reveal ignorance rather than hypocrisy.