One man’s bureaucrat is another man’s terrorist.
While our government constantly reminds us that its attempts to stop Muslim (and now, “domestic”) terrorists are all “honorable,” our drones terrorize innocent foreigners with the threat of sudden and unexpected death, we have condoned torture, and American cops, prosecutors and judges celebrate and use the prospect of being sodomized in prison as a device to terrorize suspects into plea bargains.
Here’s a video of a US government spokesman accusing Al Qaida of violence and terrorism. He’s interrupted by a young woman determined to speak out against violence and terrorism committed by the US government. The woman is forcibly removed. More importantly, the audience does not object. The woman tries to speak the truth to the apparent authorities–but the audience doesn’t want to hear it. I wonder how many members of that audience understand that, by their silence, they’ve not only assented to their government’s terrorist acts against foreigners, but also to their government’s terrorist acts against other Americans and even themselves.
Why? Because the U.S. government is the world’s biggest terrorist. None of us want to believe that, but it’s true.
What was our express reason for invading Iraq? Weapons of Mass Destruction. But there weren’t any. In the end, we had no more right or reason to invade Iraq, than the Nazi’s had to invade Poland. Our government has become the world’s Nazis–both abroad, and at home.
The invasion of Iraq was expressly intended to subject the Iraqis to a big dose of “Shock and Awe” for the implicit “crime” of selling Iraqi crude for currencies other than fiat dollars. But what does “Shock and Awe” mean if not “Terror“?
The real purpose for invading Iraq was to terrify Iraq–and the rest of the oil-producing countries of the world–into continuing to sell crude oil only for fiat dollars.
The invasion of Afghanistan was similarly unjustified. We’ve spent ten years “invading” the nation of Afghanistan because a couple dozen men who allegedly caused 9/11, allegedly trained in the wilderness of Afghanistan. What if they’d trained in the mountains of Mexico, or North Carolina–would we also be justified in invading and destroying the nation of Mexico or the state of North Carolina? The fact that some privae people trained in the wilderness of Afghanistan is not sufficient to justify the invasion of the nation of Afghanistan. The fact that we have invaded–not out of right–but out of a mere power to do so, has to be terrifying to Afghans and the world.
Better watch your p’s and q’s, world–or all the almighty US military might subject you, too, to a big dose of “shock and awe” (terror).
We continue to use drones to seek out and kill any Afghan deemed to be an “enemy” (how dare Afghans resist our unwarranted invasion?). As we kill these “enemies,” we also kill innocent people who happen to be close by when fired on by a drone. Our government excuses the deaths of innocent men, women and children as “acceptable collateral damage”.
But isn’t “collateral damage” ultimately terrifying? Isn’t the idea that it’s “acceptable” for a foreign (or domestic) government to kill innocent people at any given moment terrifying?
Imagine: you might be be walking down a street and unknowingly pass some individual “enemy” who, right then, was being targeted for death by a drone. Simply because you happened to be in close proximity to that “enemy,” you might suddenly be killed by an unseen machine. Would the possibility that you or your family members might be suddenly killed at any moment without warning for no discernible reason subject you to a sense of “terror”? Could the government and people who operate the drones that can kill indiscriminately be characterized as “terrorists”?
The terror associated with drones is not based on merely the threat of innocents being killed. It’s also based on the “official immunity” of the prospective killers. They can kill you for no reason or even for their own amusement, and they won’t be held accountable. Their “audience” (the American people) will not object.
We know that innocent people are sometimes killed. That possibility is a little scary, but it’s not “terrifying” insofar as we also know that our killers will be pursued by the police and ultimately held accountable. Not every killer is caught and punished. But the probability that every killer (even those who work for the government) will be pursued and held accountable, provides the confidence we need to step out of our homes and go shopping or take a vacation.
But imagine living in a world of perpetual war or unlimited “official immunity” wherein you can be killed by employees of a government and those killers will never be held accountable. Imagine living in a world where the government “class” can assault you, even kill you, and know that they will nevertheless be “immune” from prosecution. Isn’t that terrifying?
“Official immunity” is intrinsically terrifying and ultimately, conducive to overt terrorism.
Terror is an essential part of our government’s arsenal. Think not? Look at the Cold War and the threat of “Mutually Assured Destruction”. For most of 40 years, our government–and the “evil empire” Soviet Union–terrorized the world with threats of global, thermonuclear war. Thus, our government’s propensity to engage in terrorism is pretty well established.
It has to be that way if we are going to try to be the “world’s policeman” since the gov-co doesn’t have the resources to directly control everyone. We can’t put a soldier (or a cop) on every street corner. Therefore, if our government is going to control, it must try to achieve an indirect “control” by terrifying the world into fearing (rather than respecting) the US government.
The formula is simple and ancient. As George Washington observed, ““Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” Washington wasn’t only talking about the US government, he was talking about all governments. At bottom, government power rests on the proposition that you must do as government says, or they’ll kill you.
All earthly governments are ultimately terroristic. The bigger the government, the more terrifying it becomes. As our government grows larger and intrudes more deeply into the lives of Americans and foreign countries, that government will inevitably become more terroristic.
Our government’s impulse to engage in terrorism will grow, so long as Americans (like the audience in the video below or the Congress in the photo above), prefer to believe their government is “honorable,” and therefore turn a blind eye to government’s terrorism. That blind eye will ultimately hurt us all because, as the American people allow their government to freely terrorize foreign nations, that same government will increasing rely on terror (a “police state” entitled to “official immunity“) to control Americans.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and America’s growing police state are not separate phenomenon. They are both symptoms of the same disease: big government. A police state will inevitably invade foreign countries. A nation that invades foreign countries will inevitably devolve into a police state. The only protection against these inevitabilities is a populace that rejects big government and “official immunity” and insists on maintaining public control over government.
Because it’s too painful for us to “see” that our sons and daughters in the military have functioned like a bunch of Nazi thugs in their invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, we will be inevitably forced to “see” Nazi thugs patrolling the streets of the United States.
In the end, the nation that engages in terror becomes subjected to terror. And rightly so.
As you watch video, I suggest you supply background music by singing, “Homeland, Homeland, uber alles”.