{Untold numbers of people get
email alerts to tell them when there's another incisive analysis
added to this site. You could be one of them. Join The Many, The
Proud, The Readers. Go straight to the right side of the page where
it says “Follow By Email” on top of the right hand column, and
sign up today!
It's your sacred duty.}
Is it only terrorism when “white”
people are targets?
Or, more accurately, when the people or
country are white?
Either that, or the U.S. media better
explain what weird hidden political agendas drive its “coverage”
of violent events. Politically motivated bombings by the same Islamic
jihadists that the U.S. and its lackey nations and their media call
“terrorists” when they're assassinated by the U.S., or when those
groups try to blow up a couple of cargo planes with explosive printer
toner cartridges, or take down a passenger jet with explosive
underwear, are suddenly just “militants,” and their bombings
plain old bombings, not “terrorist bombings,” when the victims
are Pakistanis, or Nigerians, or Indonesians, or Turks. Same
political movement, same ideological motivation, same deliberate
murder of civilians, yet a different and lesser crime. Specifically,
a much less serious crime, since according to the
indoctrinational system, “terrorism” is the WORST POSSIBLE EVIL
IN THE WORLD. That's certainly the attitude that is inculcated in the
populace by the hysteria and outrage fed to us by Western bloc media.
But bombs in any of those places that
target U.S. embassies, as happened in Africa in 1998, or even
“Western” (i.e. “white”) tourists, are emphatically
and always “terrorism.”
There are examples of this glaring and
obvious double standard practically daily, which demonstrates that
this inexplicable and unexplained devaluing of certain victims is
routine and entrenched in U.S. establishment media.
Obviously it is intended that we don't even notice the double
standard, and that
if we do notice, we
just accept it as unremarkable, merely the natural order of things
requiring no explanation, much less justification. As for assuming we
wouldn't- or shouldn't- even notice; thanks for the insult to
our intelligence, propagandists!
Here are some examples on Sunday May
12th from two “prestige” media outfits, NPR, and the
crème de la crème of the U.S. bourgeois propaganda
system, the august New York Times.
At 5 pm EST (Eastern Standard Time, the
time zone of the east coast of the U.S., including Washington, D.C.,
New York City, and Boston, three important hubs of power), NPR led
with a story about the bombings yesterday in Turkey in a city
bordering Syria (Reyhanli, Turkey) with a large population of Syrian
refugees. The Turkish government was quick to blame the Assad regime.
(Probably correctly. That is, it's most likely a correct assumption.)
Even though much devastation was caused, at least 43 people were
killed and many injured, and the attack was obviously a wanton
assault on civilians, the words “terrorism,” “terror,” or
“terrorist” were not uttered in the story.
The next story starts by saying “the
biggest terrorist trial in Germany in a long time.” It's the trial
of a surviving member of a gang of neo-Nazi killers who went around
murdering Turks (and one Greek) in Germany for a decade, and planting
nail bombs (the poor man's cluster bomb- actually more like the poor
man's Claymore mine) in marketplaces that permanently maimed people,
to the indifference and hostility of the police, who brushed off the
murders as communal spats among Turks or criminal gang activity. It
wasn't until the Nazis made the mistake of killing a policewoman that
suddenly “the authorities” took it seriously. That's when the
German secret police when on a document destruction binge
(unmentioned by NPR, natch) to hide its apparent links to the Nazis.
Obviously they knew about them at the very least, and perhaps much
worse.
So why are some serial killings by a
gang of racist neo-Nazis in Germany “terrorism,” and large bombs
that devastate a town in Turkey not? You tell us, NPR.
Meanwhile the New York Times did
what it always does, demoting terrorism in non-elite countries to
some lesser level of evil. It did this in two different
articles this time. And in a third it couldn't seem to make up its
mind whether the violence was “terrorism” or mere “militancy.”
So it went with both.
First, on the front page, a story by
Declan Walsh about the election victory of a former Prime
Minister, Nawaz Sharif. [A corrupt, rich bastard, by the way, which
is to say a typical Pak PM, who was overthrown previously by the
military. Not because he was corrupt. Because he fired a couple of
generals. The nerve of the guy!] The Times sub-subhead reads
“Record Turnout Despite Taliban Attacks That Killed at Least 21.”
That would be 21 on election day itself, so it gives a false
impression of the true toll of the Taliban's terror campaign. And 21
is only about a third of the number the European Union says died that
day. 21 is seven times the number killed in the Boston
Marathon bombing, which was immediately labeled terrorism. The EU's
figure of 64 is 21 times
the death toll in Boston, which was 3. If you like, we could
do the math for the over 100 killed overall by the Taliban in its
attempt to stop the election. (The terrorism continues even after the
election is over.) Or the thousands they have murdered over the last
several years to impose their will and express their displeasure with
particular people or policies- like the schoolgirl they almost
succeeded in murdering on her way to school, to make the totally
reasonable point that girls should not be allowed to be
educated. And what better way to impose that sensible policy on other
people than by stopping a school bus at gunpoint and shooting a child
in the head?
(The last six paragraphs of the story
are devoted to Walsh getting expelled from Pakistan, because of his
“undesirable activities,” quoting the Paki “authorities.” As
of press time the NYT wasn't able to pry any further
explanation from the Pakis.) [1]
The article is mostly devoted to the
election itself and the background of Sharif, and how it might affect
the U.S. There is some reporting on the terrorism of the Taliban, who
are mentioned by name- but the word “terrorism” (or “terror”
or “terrorist”) does not appear. Instead we get “militant
movement” (referring specifically to the Taliban by name) and
“militant violence over the years.” Gee, when does it rise to the
level of terrorism?
Walsh even quotes a statement from two
days earlier (Friday, April 10th) by “the Taliban leader Hakimullah
Mehsud” (who by the way lives quite openly and moves about freely
in Pakistan, unmolested by the so-called authorities, a fact
unmentioned by the Times- hey
don't want the Paks to feel pressure to arrest an actual terrorist)
ordering his “commanders to attack the 'infidel system' of
democracy, warning that teams of suicide bombers would hit targets
across the country.” Said “targets” being entirely civilian in
nature, indeed chosen specifically for their political significance
and to terrorize
people away from voting. But that's not terrorism.
Now
consider what may have been Walsh's weirdest paragraph:
“But
the sense of a vibrant, if flawed, democracy was tempered by Taliban
attacks throughout the campaigning. [Not “terrorist” attacks,
note, even though these were attacks on civilians
for a stated political
purpose, to stop people from voting, by
terrorizing them.] The
militant [sic] movement's ability to derail campaigning, particularly
in the mountainous northwest, was taken as a signal that it has
evolved beyond its nihilistic guerrilla roots and has become a
powerful political insurgency bent on upending Western-style
democracy in Pakistan.”[“Ex-Premier Is Set To Regain power In
Pakistan Vote,” NYT,
Sun. May 12, 2013, pgs. 1 and 8, paragraph 22.]
So the
fact that its terrorism is successful
means it has “evolved beyond” its “nihilistic guerrilla roots”
and is now a “political insurgency”? What's the difference
between a “political insurgency” and a terrorist movement? Why
was the IRA “terrorist,” why was the PLO, why is Hamas? Indeed,
why was the ANC “terrorist”? (Dick Cheney, for one, still insists
it was.)
Does
not referring to the Taliban as a “powerful political insurgency”
lend it legitimacy?
Sounds like a political movement. Which it is, albeit a violent one.
With totalitarian aims that include the utter abnegation of women.
And it uses terrorism to achieve its ends. Which is the only sensible
way to judge whether a group is “terrorist,” as opposed to the
U.S. method, which decides based on the ideology, goals, or economic
structure of an entity, or cynically to dovetail with some U.S.
political ploy of the moment. (Hence Cuba is officially “terrorist,”
says the U.S. State Department, keeper of the Official List of Which
Nations Are Terrorist.)
I
think what the Paki Taliban does- plants bombs to stop elections,
assassinates officials who call for reform in the vicious “blasphemy”
law used to persecute innocent Christians and others, shoots
schoolgirls in the head for going to school, and much more,
constitutes terrorism. The NY Times
evidently does not, for some odd reason.
Notice
also the characteristic mealy-mouthed passive voice, “taken as a
signal.” By whom? Declan never says. I would guess by the NYT,
for whatever bizarre reason. And what is “nihilistic guerrilla
roots” other than an example of contorting oneself into a verbal
pretzel to avoid the
word “terrorist”?
I
wonder why Hezbollah isn't “a powerful political insurgency” that
has “evolved beyond its nihilistic guerrilla roots” instead of
being a “terrorist” organization? Why isn't Hamas, which actually
governs territory, and doesn't bomb
polling places to try and stop elections? And what are we to make of
FARC as “terrorist.” They've never engaged in suicide bombings,
or bombings of crowds of civilians simply to cause mayhem and kill
random strangers. In fact, they laid down their arms and tried to
participate in elections some years back, and the Colombian
bourgeoisie proceeded to double-cross them and sic its fascist death
squads on them, murdering their candidates. Those are the same people
who systematically slaughter labor organizers and honest journalists,
with U.S. support.
Nor
can it be claimed that the NYT
is merely slavishly hewing to the U.S. Government line and calling
“terrorist” only those orgs that the State Department puts on its
“terrorist list.” I'm assuming, perhaps wrongly, that the Paki
Taliban is on that list. (It sure should be.) But the Iranian
terrorist group MEK, which has killed Americans, most certainly was
on that list. But it still
wasn't “terrorist.” Rather, it was “on the State Department
list of terrorist organizations” or “listed by the State
Department as a terrorist organization.” Notice the difference.
When it came to MEK, being on “the list” was a legal
technicality. And a technicality with no import, as a slew of U.S.
politicians, including Fearless Terrorism Fighter Rudolph Giuliani,
who provided material support to, and received lavish speaking fees
from MEK, can attest to, given the lack of prosecution for their
obviously illegal activities. [2]
The
point is that while affecting a tone of neutral, objective reportage,
the NY Times and
other outlets of corporate state propaganda are presenting an almost
funhouse mirror distortion of the world, an image warped by their
secret, almost inscrutable hidden political and ideological agendas.
Figuring out the motives and inner workings of the U.S. media is akin
to Kremlin-watching. At times keeping up with who are the demons and
who are okay is like playing Simon Says, with the media telling
people who to love and hate, according to today's alliances of
convenience and temporary political gambits by the U.S.
None
of this should be taken to mean that I defend or endorse Hamas or
Hezbollah, or FARC. But nor can I say they are all good or all bad. I
prefer to be objective and not be forced to boo or cheer on the
command of the rulers of the U.S. to suit their
own interests, which
they define as the national interest. In fact, ultimately what goes
under the rubric of U.S. “national interests” are the class
interests of the top layer of the corporate elite and megarich
individuals. The rest of us just pay the taxes and fight the wars,
while they tell us we have to sacrifice more to maintain their empire
for them. This is called “patriotism.” To object is disloyalty,
or treason, or “supporting terrorism.” Such is life in a Free
Country.
In
that “vibrant, but flawed” Paki democracy, it turns out that in
some districts more ballots were cast than there are registered
voters. A mere “flaw,” I suppose. Hey, nobody's perfect!
A
few words about the NYT
equating of elections with democracy, indeed a “vibrant democracy.”
Of course this is nonsense. Pakistan is no more a democracy, which
would be a country where the government actually has to answer to the
people and where ultimate power rests with the people, than the U.S.
is. In Pakistan cliques of rich people vie with one another for state
power, similar to what the GOP and Democrats [sic!]
represent here. Plus, in Pakistan, the civilian government doesn't
even control the military. And as Mao Zedong so
depressingly observed, “political power flows out of the barrel of
a gun.” Which he thought was a good thing. Of course
he was a thug who lusted for power his whole life, the more power the
better. [3]
The
second article in the Sunday paper (p.12) was “Car Bombings Kill
Dozens in Center of Turkish Town Near the Syrian Border.” “At
least” 43 were killed. An accompanying photo shows blackened
buildings with their facades blown off. But they weren't “terrorist
bombings.” The “T” word appears nowhere in that article either.
This is the same story as on NPR I mentioned near the beginning, the
terrorist attack on the city of Reyhanli.
Reyhanli,
Turkey, after car bombings on Saturday May 11th.
Not terrorism,
according
to the New York
Times.
In
the third article the Times
gets sloppy and seems to use “militant” and “terrorist”
synonymously, something I've never noticed in the paper before. In
fact, usually the two words never so much as appear in the same
article. This is also on p. 12 and concerns the arrest in Egypt of
“three militants with ties to Al Qaeda [so why aren't they
“terrorists”?? Obama KILLS people with such “ties”] who were
planning terrorist [AH! there it is] attacks in Egyptian cities and
against a foreign embassy,
the interior minister said Saturday.” (My italics.) That's most of
the first paragraph.
So,
a “foreign embassy” was a target. Guess which country's? That
might be a hint to why these “militants” were going to commit a
“terrorist” attack. If it was just some Egyptians in a
marketplace getting blown up- feh,
that's just a bombing, not a terrorist
bombing.
I
think I understand. The attacks in Egyptian cities, i.e. against
Egyptian civilians, would have merely been “bombings,” acts of
“militancy.” Whereas attacking an (U.S., perhaps, NYT?) embassy
would be terrorism.
Hence some of their attacks would be acts of “militancy,” and
some “terrorism,” depending on the target. Some would be tragic
news from a faraway land, others would be moral outrages, occasions
for high dudgeon requiring the U.S. to kill somebody, somewhere.
The next day, Monday, (May 13th)
NPR and the NY Times are still hewing to what's obviously an
editorial policy on when and when not to use the T word. (A policy
that per standard establishment media practice is never explained to
their targets, namely us.) Bright and early on NPR's “Morning
Edition,” the regular presenter Steve Inskeep has a chat
with- what do you know!- Declan Walsh of the NY Times.
The same Walsh who just got kicked out of Pakistan and wrote
the first article I discussed. He says of the just-concluded
elections there, “there was a very strenuous campaign of violence”
by “militants.” That would be a reference to the bombings,
shootings, kidnappings, and constant bloodcurdling threats by the
Taliban terrorists that killed “over 125” in the last month of
campaigning, we're told. [According to the EU, 64 people were
murdered just on election day- that apparently wasn't included in
Walsh's total. BBC reported this later the same morning.] So he's
sticking to the script.
Walsh further explains to Inskeep (and
us) that the “Taliban” “abandoned the democratic process.”
Abandoned? When did they uphold it?
They do have front parties with the same demented ideology. Does he
mean those parties didn't run? I've heard nothing about that.
Certainly if they didn't run, it would have been because they were
ordered not to, or like the Taliban, suddenly believe that
“democracy” is “UnIslamic,” as the Taliban have announced in
justifying their terrorism-enforced edict that there should be no
elections and no one better vote- or else.
I can see why the terrorists would
prefer Pakistan's traditional military dictatorships. The Pak
military has been very very good for Islamic terrorists. They
actually were created as a nominally covert arm of the Pak military
to attack India, especially the Indian province of Kashmir, as well
as do other dirty work. By the way, Kashmir was actually divided into
three, with about the same land area going to India, China, and
Pakistan. For some reason the U.S. media never tells you that. I
guess it's to support U.S. policy of telling India- Hey, just give
Pakistan your part of Kashmir. Then you guys can be friends.
As if.
But I'll bet you the Pakis never try
and pull their terrorism shit on China!
These days the Paki Taliban are feeling
their oats, and thinking they should be running the show, not the
ISI. The terrorists' ultimate goal is to take over Pakistan
themselves, and its nuclear weapons arsenal. Meanwhile their
ideological soul mates are trying to take over Afghanistan again, and
have only recently been beaten back from taking over Mali and
Somalia, at least temporarily.
So what should the U.S. media do? It
should either use the word “terrorism” and its variants in a
consistent, even-handed, objective manner, like actual journalists
would do, or refrain from using the word at all if it is hopelessly
tainted by its use as a political and ideological bludgeon against
official enemies. But since the U.S. media is the propaganda arm of
the corporate oligarchy, an oligarchy which is served by the U.S.
Government (and by the 50 individual state governments as well) this
will not happen. So it is up to us to be constantly skeptical and
critical of the propaganda system to avoid being duped and
brainwashed by it. That's more work than just being able to trust.
(Hello there, welcome to the adult world!)
We live in interesting times. It is
morally and ethically challenging to defend human values and not just
throw in with either global imperialists or fanatical primitives.
This requires resisting easy thinking. I offer my analyses to you to
help you in this worthwhile endeavor.
1] He and the NY Times
can be thankful they get privileged treatment. They aren't murdered,
the way journalists get murdered in Pakistan by the ISI, or the way
the U.S. military and U.S.-backed governments of Mexico, or
Colombia, or Yemen assassinate them. Nor do NY Times employees
get kidnapped and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay like an Aljazeera
employee was, where his captors pumped him for info on Aljazeera's
inner workings and tried to force him to agree to be a spy for them
in order to be let out of his cage in Gitmo and go home to his wife
and children. Nor does the President of the United States call up a
foreign government to demand that their reporters be locked up in
prison, as Obama as done with the Yemeni journalist who revealed a
civilian massacre in Yemen by a U.S. aerial attack. (Of course he was
tortured also.)
2] Yet the Supreme
Court recently ruled that if lawyers were to give free advice
to the “terrorist” Tamil Tigers (since exterminated by the Sri
Lankan rulers and army, along with a large number of Tamil civilians
held hostage by the Tigers) on how to renounce terrorism and
legalize themselves, that would be “material support for a
terrorist organization” and subject to criminal prosecution. This
is the kind of mind-twisting hyper-hypocritical double standard the
U.S. legal system subjects us to. Obviously U.S. law is purely and
simply an instrument of political power. Their judges are left to
twist themselves into logical pretzels to give a judicial imprimatur
to the cynical calculations of state power.
The MEK is A-okay, because
influential politicians support them, and they help out in planting
bombs in movie theaters in Tehran and other chores, such as
assassinations, and spying on the regime for Israel and the U.S.
(Gee, spying on one's own country for foreign powers, and hostile
ones at that? Isn't that high treason? Nah, it's patriotism, because
they're doing it for US.)
See, in order to wind up in
prison (or dead), you have to be connected to a group the U.S.
really doesn't like. Like charities that try and help the
Palestinians and Lebanese subjected to Israeli bombardment and so
forth. These are said to be “linked” to the “terrorist” Hamas
and Hezbollah. Hey, if you get an email from someone on a U.S.
shitlist, you're “linked to terrorism.” That's not an
exaggeration. That's exactly the kind of “link” that is
cited by the media, between Major Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter
who killed 13 soldiers in 2009, and the now late Anwar al-Awlaki- aka
Scourge of Yemen, to hear the U.S. media tell it. Why, his very genes
are evil, thus they needed to bump off his 16 year old son in a
restaurant two weeks after they offed al-Awlaki. [No, no, I'm not
“defending” al-Awlaki. But anyone who defends government
assassinations as routine policy is defending the most sinister form
of oppressive state power.]
There are people rotting in
U.S. prisons right now for donating to the wrong charity. Viewing the
wrong website will get you on a terror suspect list too. Such
unhealthy interest has been used as evidence in U.S. courts to
convict people of “terrorism,” including for translating jihadist
statements. (The ACLU was appalled by that last case, but they're
terrorist sympathizers, of course, so who cares? Anyway, the ACLU has
been a target of FBI and CIA infiltration going back decades, so
they're a known “enemy” of the secret police, and thus
unpatriotic.)
Cutting off any and all
economic and humanitarian aid to the Palestinians- especially the
ones living under Hamas- has long been U.S. policy. Palestinian
political activists were persecuted by the Clinton regime for years
for the crime of handing out leaflets that said the wrong things.
(Namely pro-Palestinian things that of course highlighted Israeli
oppression.) American Jews on the other hand are encouraged to
contribute hundreds of millions of dollars annually to finance
“settlement expansion,” i.e. the sacred mission by Jewish
religious fundamentalists of “re”claiming the Land of Israel (as
they imagine it), rightly theirs because “God” promised it to
them. (So why doesn't “God” get rid of the Palestinians? Send in
a flood or a hoard of locusts or a leprosy epidemic or something?
Never mind, that must be an “anti-Semitic” question.) That's on
top of the several billion a year in free money that all U.S.
taxpayers are compelled to give to Israel to buy high tech U.S.
weapons to bomb hospitals in Gaza with white phosphorous (see the
Goldstone Report etc. if you think I'm making that up) shoot kids who
throw rocks, (and non-violent protesters who don't) and so on.
Israel, it's rarely mentioned, so therefore needs to be mentioned
more often, is the top recipient of U.S. foreign aid. And those are
grants, not loans.
Oh, but those horrible Hamas
and Hezbollah are such religious fanatics! And they're suicide
bombers! (Unlike World War II Japanese kamikaze pilots.) And they
want to impose Sharia! (Whatever that is.) They cut off
people's hands! (Our Saudi “allies” only cut off people's heads.
What, the jihadists do that too? That's different! They're the Bad
Guys. And besides, they videotape it! Anyway the Saudis only behead
people who deserve it, like drug dealers and foreign maids.)
And they oppress women!
(True enough, and they're loathsome for it, and for their general
totalitarianism and imposing their religious CRAP.)
After all, the U.S.
establishment cares so much about the oppression of Muslim
women! Why wouldn't they? Hey, look at how the U.S. insists on
equality for women in its own society! That's why women make just as
much money as men for the same jobs. And half the members of Congress
are women. And half the Fortune 500 companies are headed by women,
and...
What's that? None of that is
true? Far from it?
So what!
To quote the Great Man
Himself, Ronald Reagan, “facts are stupid things.” They're stupid
because they keep contradicting ideology, which is Truth
Itself. (RR, GOP Convention speech, .)
3] Regarding
the attitude of the U.S. government and corporate media towards
elections. Their attitude is either to use the ritual of elections to
validate as legitimate some oppressive government it supports, or
slams elections as shams when they're in countries whose regimes they
don't like, for economic or political reasons. For example, the NYT
and the rest of the gang regularly held the “elections” that the
PRI staged during its 75-year one-party dictatorship in Mexico. Only
after the PRI's monopoly on power was broken did there start to creep
into Timesland oblique references to past, shall we say, a
taint of unfairness in Mexico's electoral process. And
the elections of fascist state terror dictatorships, like “South”
Vietnam under the rule of various generals, or El Salvador in the
1980s, where people were herded to the polls under a state reign of
terror, are treated as if they're actual free and fair elections
occurring in normal democratic lands. [See the book Demonstration Elections, by Herman and Brodhead, for example.] Japan is another
example of a long-time one-party dictatorship that only recently has
loosened up some, but to no avail in terms of real change in the
power structure or social order.
On the other hand, perfectly
legitimate elections that produce winners the U.S. doesn't like- such
as in Venezuela since Hugo Chavez first won, or the Sandinistas in
Nicaragua (after they overthrew Somoza), or Hamas among the
Palestinians, running against the corrupt and venal PLO (now inflated
into the grander-sounding Palestinian Authority, to which the
Israelis have subcontracted repression in the West Bank, which helps
Israel assassinate “militants,” and whose “security forces”
are trained by those avatars of human rights, the CIA)- those
elections are dismissed with contempt as shams or as somehow
unfair.(Why, U.S. elections are perfectly fair! Even
when five political apparatchiks on the Supreme Court do the
electing! Just ask the U.S. media!)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated in advance. Thank you.