Jeff Davis wrote:
> It is standard practice in the establishment media to demonize so-called
> "terrorists". This demonization, which should be understood as a form of
> propaganda, is so consistent and so thorough that it comes to be accepted
> as established fact--the common truth. People in the power establishment,
> and particularly those in the military, have so internalized these "truths"
> that their logic no longer deals with the actual facts, and is therefor
> stymied. Thus, the mystery.
>
> The truth is easy: they are real people, with a real point of view, with a
> real agenda, who are involved in a political relationship with a sovereign
> power far more powerful than they are. The relationship is adversarial and
> belligerent, and in that mode, violence is an instrument of policy.
> Violence has such an amplifying--though dangerous--effect, that a small
> group gets "big" influence from its application. A clear fact, though not
> a nice one.
> Though demonization might lead the average media consumer to believe that
> "terrorist madmen" are inclined to indiscriminate mass-murder, the truth is
> far less dramatic: like any entity exercising that large independence of
> action ordinarily the province only of sovereignty, a group in rebellion
> against an established regime will take whatever action, violent or
> non-violent, they believe will advance their agenda.
And if their agenda is the eradication of all who do not share their
beliefs? Such is not unheard of. In fact, it's pretty much a
stereotype, though it holds more than a grain of truth.
> I expect that there are some non-politicized scholarly treatments of the
> subject "out there", perhaps even some recent ones--it's been awhile since
> I read up on the subject--but you're not likely to find them in the
> mainstream press. In fact, the absence of them in the mainstream press
> could be interpreted as a sign of what such studies find--ie, something
> inconsistent with the mainstream message.
Or it could just be that no one's really bothered to explore that field,
at least no one who broadcasts their results. Also consider that, as
much as we might demonize terrorists, a number of terrorists tend to
demonize everybody else, and possibly to greater heights because they
don't have as many allies (or, at least, non-enemies) who are similar to
the "demons" that they might otherwise have to justify sparing. The US
and company were willing to accept the surrender of Iraqi forces when
they liberated Kuwait, but those same forces, if the tide of victory
were reversed, may well have seen heathens and heretics as their enemy -
demons to be executed, rather than humans to be spared a violent death
if possible.
There is little question that, somewhere on this Earth, there is at
least one person who would prefer if we were dead - each of us for a not
completely identical set of reasons, perhaps, and different numbers of
antagonists per person as a result, but at least one nevertheless. This
person most likely does not know us personally; they just wish that all
members of a hated group would die, and we happen to belong to that
group. For instance: anyone who uses the Internet (and thus by some
peoples' perceptions *must* be a child pornographer, and thus a suitable
murder target) raise your hand...
The question is: with everyone wanted dead by someone, why do so many
people fail to be killed every day?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:15 MDT