Terrorism Means What Washington Wants It To Mean

Washington, DC must be devoid of any dictionaries. Otherwise how can so many politicians get away with the novel use of so many words. For example the phrase “free speech zone” does not mean what it sounds like it means. It is in practice a way of restricting free speech, not promoting it.

The words terror, terrorist, and terrorism are easily applied to our latest “enemy of the week.” Rightly so in many cases. Most of the people labeled as such have killed and maimed other people. When the United States kills and maims other people, how is it defined? Do we label ourselves as terrorists? No? Why not? If we are doing the same thing, shouldn’t the same label apply?

Noam Chomsky (who knows a thing or two about words) digs deeper into this subject, and more, in a piece called The Most Wanted List over at tomdispatch.com.

I particularly like this part of Tom Engelhardt’s introduction:

Of course, the minute you try to turn the Washington norm (in word or act) around, as Chomsky did in a piece entitled What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?, you've already entered the theater of the absurd. "Terror" is a particularly good example of this. "Terror" is something that, by (recent) definition, is committed by free-floating groups or movements against innocent civilians and is utterly reprehensible (unless the group turns out to be the CIA running car bombs into Baghdad or car and camel bombs into Afghanistan, in which case it's not a topic that's either much discussed, or condemned in our world). On the other hand, that weapon of terror, air power, which is at the heart of the American way of war, simply doesn't qualify under the category of "terror" at all -- no matter how terrifying it may be to innocent civilians who find themselves underneath the missiles and bombs.

There is a reason why the supporters of the powers that be in Washington are dismissive of Noam Chomsky. Read the article to find out why.