On Iraq and the “Media”

To suggest that the media is only emphasizing the negative ignores the reality that the “media” isn’t some collective group pushing a shared worldview on unsuspecting customers but rather a number of disparate and fiercely competing corporate conglomerates each made up of individuals who, while they see the world differently, are all involved in the corporation’s quest for increased profit. To suggest that there may be some kind of conspiracy being perpetrated by these corporations to make the Bush administration look bad, an administration which has pushed “deregulation” policies from which these companies stand to gain billions of dollars in profits is absolutely ludicrous and contradictory to their self-interests. Anyone who denies this reality ignores that the sole purpose, the reason for the existence of a corporation is to consistently increase and maximize profits.

When a famous broadcaster contends that they are free to make there own decisions regarding what they emphasize in their newsrooms they neglect to recall that the corporation that hired them did so because they believed that this broadcaster would maximize their profits. Therefore, the corporation would not have hired an individual that they perceived to espouse views contrary to their self-interest or hire someone who would upset their advertisers and customers by possibly proposing so-called “radical” worldviews. For example, predicting in 2003 that no WMD would be found in Iraq and that the invasion and occupation would only exacerbate and expedite regional instability, increase the influence of Iran and decrease U.S. hegemony or suggest that the occupation would be the impetus for Iraq to devolve into absolute anarchy, all of which were views that received no airtime in 2003 because they were perceived to be “radical,” “liberal,” or “unpatriotic” and were views held by the absolute smallest of minorities.

These views also happened to be correct.

On Peace and Freedom

One need look no further than our own revolutionary history to see how the distinction between revolution and terrorism can be perceived differently to different people. Certainly Andrew Oliver, the man commissioned to enforce the Stamp Act thought that the early colonists were terrorists when he observed his effigy hanging from a tree. Later the effigy was beheaded and that night an angry mob destroyed his home. Perhaps Oliver’s family wouldn’t have called these acts terrorism but terror was certainly the perpetrator’s goal. Maybe the Native Indians had similar thoughts on the subject when not only did our fellow countrymen strike fear in their hearts but perpetrated acts of genocide, people that they ironically referred to as “savages.” Additionally, the perspective of a Palestinian man fighting to restore proper ownership of the home that had been in his family for generations when it was appropriated to a Jewish family may be skewed to the point that means that he previously found to be unthinkable suddenly become realistic after compounded horrors and indignities are perpetrated against him and his family.

This may be the reason why it’s been said that one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. While there is no universally accepted definition of terrorism and there certainly can be no agreement on whose who between conflicting parties, the only objective description of such actions could only be distinguished by whether or not the action is irrationally violent or rationally peaceful.

Could one lump Mohandas Gandhi, who used peaceful methods to gain Indian independence with the Secretary-General of Hezbollah, Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah or George Washington for that matter? Most people (at least in this country) would see a huge gulf between Washington and Nasrallah but both men’s actions are and were driven by the belief that they were/are fighting for freedom. Sure, there methods were different but Washington’s methods were also not following the conventions of the day. If one can’t see how Nasrallah and Washington are analogous, it certainly can be observed that both Washington’s and Gandhi’s goals were accomplished through completely different methods. (Although, the British may have perceived both as being terrorists.)

If we accept that terrorism is defined as an action that is undertaken with the intention of spurring irrational reactionary behavior then Gandhi’s methods must certainly not be considered to be terrorism as he sought only to peacefully coexist with his oppressors. Furthermore, if it is accepted that it is universal that all human beings desire peace and freedom then any action that causes another to lose either must be described as terrorism.

Next Page »