state-sponsored terrorism

The Discourse of "Terrorism" - Thinking The Unthinkable

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sun Oct 12, 2008 at 09:42

    "It was never a concern by any of us in the Chicago school reform movement that he [William Ayers] had led a fugitive life years earlier." -- former Illinois state Republican Rep. Diana Nelson.

    "Now we're all sons of bitches." -- Ken Bainbridge, test director, first atomic bomb test, Los Alamos, New Mexico, July 16, 1945.

It may seem like a minor point at best, a moral abomination at worst, but it bears saying, nonetheless: The labeling of William Ayers as "a domestic terrorist" in the 1970s is a debatable point at best. This is not to defend his choices at the time.  It is, rather, to insist, ala George Orwell, on the importance of preserving accurate language, for without it, our collective capacity to tell and know the truth disappears.

Furthermore, one could just as well argue that John McCain was "a state terrorist" for his role in the Vietnam War.  But that, of course, is politically unthinkable.  Making some things unthinkable, and other things  unquestionable is what "democratic" authoritarianism is all about.

There is nothing new in this.  In a democracy, the people are responsible for the actions of their government.  When our government drops atomic bombs on large Japanese cities, we are all terrorists to some degree. So, too, when we drop napalm on small Vietnamese villages, or when our tax-supported allies kill nuns in El Salvador, or arm religious fanatics in Afghanistan.   Terrorism, like suburbia, became a way of life during the Cold War.  No wonder we need a scapegoat, into whom all our guilt and self-loathing can pass.

There's More... :: (10 Comments, 3794 words in story)

USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox