Today’s Topic: Terrorists vs. Terrorism
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Guiliani spoke the other day professing that the Republicans were the ones to protect Americans and the Democrats were the ones whose elections would equate to dead people on the streets of America.
I’ve written about this before, and apparently I’m going to have to continue to write about it, but the fact is that no president is required to protect the people of America, but by oath of office, the Constitution of America.
What we are perceiving here is the penultimate of the Republican strategy to garner a one party system in America and it is based on lies and misdirection.
As I was watching Bill Maher’s "Real Time" show this week it brought to mind the concept that anyone can be a terrorist, as was shown by a young man at Virginia Tech this past week. Since everyone knows the circumstances, it’s obvious that anyone can employ the mechanisms of terrorism and become a terrorist, even in the mainstream of a great country like the United States.
Which brings us to the questions asked by student’s parents about where the school administration was in helping to guarantee the safety of the 32 students that died hours after the initial killings took place. One can only say that they were playing it safe, supposedly for the safety of the students, and yet we see that no administration can predict the actions of terrorists and thus cannot guarantee the safety of anyone.
Sure, it is possible that VA Tech could have shut down the school, but in the face of a determined attack one cannot guarantee shit except that the attack will go on until the attacker is killed. However, actions against a terrorist requires knowledge about the particular terrorist. Surprise is the one advantage a terrorist has, or even a terrorist group. But the fact that a terrorist can inflict smaller amounts of damage amongst the people thus causing fear amongst the rest is what terrorism is all about.
The young man who instigated the shootings at VA Tech was a terrorist, not by virtue of being a member of some organization, but by his desire to instill terror in the hearts of the students of that institution with the simple killing people and I mean as many people as possible.
One also has to question the response to a situation to judge whether the response is in equilibrium with the actions.
This administration has taken extreme and deceitful steps in garnering American backing for actions that lie far outside of the norm.
Was Afghanistan the initiation point of 9/11? Well, it is apparent that this is what the administration would like you to think, but when they can divert your attention to Iraq with lies, then why would anyone believe what they said in the first place?
Why believe an administration when they lied from the beginning? Why accept the concept that a terrorist organization becomes a reason to fight a war on terrorism without the truth coming out? How can anyone judge? Whom do we believe?
And what level of terrorism is permissible when our own government lies to the first responders of 9/11 by telling them no problems would be incurred because of the air pollutants due to the destruction of the World Trade Center towers and WTC7.
There are still too many questions unanswered about the 9/11 occurrences, much less to simply accept the concept of attacking countries where no intelligence suggests complicity.
Of all the information available about what brought down the World Trade Towers and WTC7, the most important is not that Boeing 757s crashed into the towers, but rather that no steel structured buildings in history have ever been brought down by either airplane crashes or burning kerosene. Kerosene simply doesn’t burn hot enough to even weaken today’s construction steel much less have catastrophic failure of the steel structure. Yet we only have, in all of steel structure history, three buildings that have supposedly been brought down in virtual freefall from 800 degree fires when steel doesn’t even begin to weaken until 1800 degrees. And those three buildings are all of those brought down on 9/11.
No where else have any steel structured buildings totally come down from a fire. The tested strength of the twin towers steel structure can be researched by viewing the NIST report on 9/11.
Back to the original premise of Rudy Guliani about Republicans keeping Americans safe and Democrats equaling death for American citizens, then one would have to suppose that the entire administration and security forces of VA Tech were Democrats.
Some might offer up that this is a disingenuous offer of proof against the Republicans, but the fact is that it is proof that terrorists acts cannot always be deterred by the authorities because there is no conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism. It is a terrorist act of one man. And if one can extrapolate the concept that terrorism means terrorist acts, then one should be able to extrapolate the concept that a terrorist act doesn’t necessarily mean an act of international terrorism.
The functional aspect of all of this is that terrorism and terrorists are not necessarily connected at the hip. All people that commit terrorism are terrorists, but the fact is that all terrorists, such as the young man with a mental problem at VA Tech wasn’t involved with terrorism.
Surprisingly enough this administration made note of that fact, also including that this was not a time to debate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
This action alone suggests that the federal government doesn’t have a true grasp on what constitutes terrorism and how to define a terrorist.
A good example of this is Rudi Guliani’s refusal to be seated with Yassar Arrafat during the Palestinian leader’s attendance at an opera in NY City, whilst he had no problems with being seated at the same venue with Ariel Sharon. Rudi’s statement was that he wouldn’t be seated with a terrorist, and yet Ariel Sharon’s appearance at just the same type of event was perfectly ok with Rudi. The Israeli-American ties go well beyond the treaty obligations of nations since Israel and the United States of America are not treaty bound to protect each other. This fact bears some thought.
For if America is not treaty bound to protect Israel, then why is Israel our "friend"? Why treat Israel as a treated partner in the world when they refused to accept any offerings from the United States on cross protections? Would it possibly be that they knew they’d be dictating American policy towards Israel and yet they’d not have to respond to attacks against America?
The truth is simple. It is far less expensive to support your efforts in a country where lobbyist have the ability to write laws and define policy. How else can our infatuation with Israel be defined, for without proper signatories to treaty obligations one has to wonder why this administration would sit and wait until Lebanon was again reduced to rubble before negotiations of any sort would ensue.
Seems that the Israelis made no efforts to distinguish themselves vocally or militarily when America was attacked, just as it seems that Israel was given extreme latitude to attack Lebanon indiscriminately with American produced and hastily re-supplied weapons. Who is the patsy here?
And it seems that they weren’t all that worried about dealing with Iran during the Iran-Contra years of President Reagan. Weapons for hostages and all that.
Jeez, perhaps we’ve been backing a bad horse in the horserace?
The point is that terrorism is an action taken by people of opposing ideologies whilst a terrorist is someone that takes those actions against a specific people for their ideologies. Mostly terrorism never comes about when people are treated like people. Almost always terrorists arises from circumstances where people are treated like dogs or worse.
Even in Darfur, where a current pogrom of despotism is taking place and the eradication of an entire people is being watched by the eyes of the world, these downtrodden people will ultimately resort to terrorism to regain their freedoms.
The fact in the world is that all countries ultimately deal with terrorists because they have no choice. Britain had no choice with the IRA, France had no choice in Algeria, and we have no choice but to deal with terrorism on the most basic levels of why terrorists are terrorists, and they will ultimately have to deal with coming into the 21st Century by dealing with us. 50 years of Palestinian strife tells us that only conflict will continue in a world where conflict is not confronted with dialog.
And Rudi, tell me this. Why were you willing to dump your Emergency Response Management facility in a building that hadn’t been hit by an airplane or major amounts of airplane shrapnel? Why, 5 hours after the collapse of both WTC towers did WTC7 collapse without any major damage? Why did the order to dispose of the WTC rubble preclude forensic study?
How is it that 5 years later we have human remains, picked bare by birds and flies, found on the roofs of additional undamaged buildings?
How is it that America has watched tens of buildings demolished by demolition teams throughout the United States and the world, and yet not recognize that buildings in free fall were not brought down by terrorist acts?
Republicans equaling life? Democrats equaling death?
Fuck off Rudi. When you brought organized crime to its knees I applauded. When you infringed on the people’s rights in order to bring down crime, I admonished you. When you lied to the people of New York, I had hoped that you were done for, but now your ugly head rises again to follow the avenue of fear by which this current administration has fucked up the country.
Perhaps the idea is to soften us up with outside terrorist attacks and then have the fait accompli delivered by a new administration.
Go away Rudi. Go Away.
5:11:55 PM 
|
