I had written an essay a while back discussing the use of Terrorist and Freedom fighter by the western world, and what kind of over tones that those words carried in conversation. It's part of what gave me the idea for an essay on Democracy, Republic, and Capitalism. So give me an idea of what you think of this essay, maybe I can intigrate more ideas into the next one.
Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?
The language the U.S. government uses to describe military actions across the world is truly propaganda and is highly questionable. The word usage that the United States of America chooses to sway public opinion pertaining to certain military and political actions is of questionable rationale. The U.S. has a history of using specific words to persuade and convince the American public of certain ideas: words such as terrorism, and freedom fighters. Within political disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, these words are used all too often. The Palestinians are “terrorists,” but are also fighting for their freedom. In Central America during the 80’s, the U.S. backed certain “freedom fighters” in their battle against tyrannical governments, yet most of these militant extremists used terrorist tactics. Each political regime in America uses the words interchangeably to further their own foreign policy agendas.
This inconsistency is interesting because America has used its own terrorist tactics in its own time. We threw the Boston Tea Party as an act against unreasonable taxation of goods by a ruling government in Britain. We formed civilian militias throughout the colonies, and fought our “occupier” to gain freedom from their unfair system. We were militants and terrorists to the British, but still consider ourselves to be freedom fighters, and nothing less.
Let us look at the Palestinian and Israeli dispute. Historically this was Palestinian land, and was given to the Jews as compensation for the horrible atrocities of WWII. The Israelis themselves committed terrorist acts upon the British government in hopes of gaining the status of an independent nation. Even the Israelis admit to this. Ahmad Yusuf, quoting Leah Rabin, the widow of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, “We were terrorist once, and they did not uproot us and we went on dealing in terrorist activities. Despite all the efforts of all the British army in the land, we went on with terrorism.” Yet the American government does not consider this terrorism, and this is not how it is presented to the American public.
Due to the formation of a Jewish nation, the Palestinians were forced from their land. They, in turn, fought the Israelis in much the same way that the Israelis fought the British, and yet are considered by America to be terrorists. Edna Homa Hunt of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes, “Throughout the Israeli occupation, newspapers in Israel have reported many acts of violence – I would call them terrorism – against the Palestinian communities of the West Bank and Gaza. But not only does the world media – especially in the U.S. – fail to report these acts of mayhem, they are disguised as actions for “law and order,” not what they are—acts of terror.” How can the Palestinians be considered terrorists while the Israelis are not?
During the Reagan administration, we were involved in many different Central American countries both politically and militarily. In an article from the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) by Bill Vann about John Negroponte, who was the ambassador to Honduras during that administration. Vann says that Negroponte “played a key role in supplying and supervising the CIA-backed [Nicaraguan] ‘contra’ mercenaries who were based in that country, and whose US-funded operations claimed 50,000 lives.” While at the same time “Honduran military death squads, operation with Washington support, assassinated hundreds of opponents of the US-backed regime.” These actions would be considered horrific, many would call them extremists and terrorists, yet America called them friends.
During the Reagan administrations covert actions in Central America, propaganda was actively used to sway public opinion. Otto Reich, a highly placed member of the Reagan administration, working with the National Security Council and Oliver North, mounted an extensive propaganda effort that violated a congressional mandate and was aimed toward the American public. Reich was later cleared and re-employed by the first Bush administration. The U.S. government clearly decides how it is going to spin a current political event to that it can get majority backing from its citizens.
The U.S. spins reports and information pertaining to issues that do not sit well with the U.S. population, in order to keep the government active in political situations abroad. Words like “freedom fighters” and “terrorists” hold deeper political meanings than may be obvious on the surface. Freedom fighters are good. Terrorists are bad. It is objectionable to manipulate these words in such a way as to support an individual administration’s agenda.
Freedom Fighter or Terrorist?
The language the U.S. government uses to describe military actions across the world is truly propaganda and is highly questionable. The word usage that the United States of America chooses to sway public opinion pertaining to certain military and political actions is of questionable rationale. The U.S. has a history of using specific words to persuade and convince the American public of certain ideas: words such as terrorism, and freedom fighters. Within political disputes such as the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, these words are used all too often. The Palestinians are “terrorists,” but are also fighting for their freedom. In Central America during the 80’s, the U.S. backed certain “freedom fighters” in their battle against tyrannical governments, yet most of these militant extremists used terrorist tactics. Each political regime in America uses the words interchangeably to further their own foreign policy agendas.
This inconsistency is interesting because America has used its own terrorist tactics in its own time. We threw the Boston Tea Party as an act against unreasonable taxation of goods by a ruling government in Britain. We formed civilian militias throughout the colonies, and fought our “occupier” to gain freedom from their unfair system. We were militants and terrorists to the British, but still consider ourselves to be freedom fighters, and nothing less.
Let us look at the Palestinian and Israeli dispute. Historically this was Palestinian land, and was given to the Jews as compensation for the horrible atrocities of WWII. The Israelis themselves committed terrorist acts upon the British government in hopes of gaining the status of an independent nation. Even the Israelis admit to this. Ahmad Yusuf, quoting Leah Rabin, the widow of assassinated Prime Minister Yitzak Rabin, “We were terrorist once, and they did not uproot us and we went on dealing in terrorist activities. Despite all the efforts of all the British army in the land, we went on with terrorism.” Yet the American government does not consider this terrorism, and this is not how it is presented to the American public.
Due to the formation of a Jewish nation, the Palestinians were forced from their land. They, in turn, fought the Israelis in much the same way that the Israelis fought the British, and yet are considered by America to be terrorists. Edna Homa Hunt of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs writes, “Throughout the Israeli occupation, newspapers in Israel have reported many acts of violence – I would call them terrorism – against the Palestinian communities of the West Bank and Gaza. But not only does the world media – especially in the U.S. – fail to report these acts of mayhem, they are disguised as actions for “law and order,” not what they are—acts of terror.” How can the Palestinians be considered terrorists while the Israelis are not?
During the Reagan administration, we were involved in many different Central American countries both politically and militarily. In an article from the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) by Bill Vann about John Negroponte, who was the ambassador to Honduras during that administration. Vann says that Negroponte “played a key role in supplying and supervising the CIA-backed [Nicaraguan] ‘contra’ mercenaries who were based in that country, and whose US-funded operations claimed 50,000 lives.” While at the same time “Honduran military death squads, operation with Washington support, assassinated hundreds of opponents of the US-backed regime.” These actions would be considered horrific, many would call them extremists and terrorists, yet America called them friends.
During the Reagan administrations covert actions in Central America, propaganda was actively used to sway public opinion. Otto Reich, a highly placed member of the Reagan administration, working with the National Security Council and Oliver North, mounted an extensive propaganda effort that violated a congressional mandate and was aimed toward the American public. Reich was later cleared and re-employed by the first Bush administration. The U.S. government clearly decides how it is going to spin a current political event to that it can get majority backing from its citizens.
The U.S. spins reports and information pertaining to issues that do not sit well with the U.S. population, in order to keep the government active in political situations abroad. Words like “freedom fighters” and “terrorists” hold deeper political meanings than may be obvious on the surface. Freedom fighters are good. Terrorists are bad. It is objectionable to manipulate these words in such a way as to support an individual administration’s agenda.
posted by Norrit at 3:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home