February 19, 2010
Terrorism: the Most Meaningless and Manipulated Word
Glenn Greenwald in Salon:
Yesterday, Joseph Stack deliberately flew an airplane into a building housing IRS offices in Austin, Texas, in order to advance the political grievances he outlined in a perfectly cogent suicide-manifesto. Stack's worldview contained elements of the tea party's anti-government anger along with substantial populist complaints generally associated with "the Left" (rage over bailouts, the suffering of America's poor, and the pilfering of the middle class by a corrupt economic elite and their government-servants). All of that was accompanied by an argument as to why violence was justified (indeed necessary) to protest those injustices:
I remember reading about the stock market crash before the "great" depression and how there were wealthy bankers and businessmen jumping out of windows when they realized they screwed up and lost everything. Isn't it ironic how far we've come in 60 years in this country that they now know how to fix that little economic problem; they just steal from the middle class (who doesn't have any say in it, elections are a joke) to cover their asses and it's "business-as-usual" . . . . Sadly, though I spent my entire life trying to believe it wasn’t so, but violence not only is the answer, it is the only answer.
Despite all that, The New York Times' Brian Stelter documents the deep reluctance of cable news chatterers and government officials to label the incident an act of "terrorism," even though -- as Dave Neiwert ably documents -- it perfectly fits, indeed is a classic illustration of, every official definition of that term. The issue isn't whether Stack's grievances are real or his responses just; it is that the act unquestionably comports with the official definition. But as NBC's Pete Williams said of the official insistence that this was not an act of Terrorism: there are "a couple of reasons to say that . . . One is he’s an American citizen." Fox News' Megan Kelley asked Catherine Herridge about these denials: "I take it that they mean terrorism in the larger sense that most of us are used to?," to which Herridge replied: "they mean terrorism in that capital T way."
All of this underscores, yet again, that Terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 11:37 AM | Permalink



















Comments
Exactly what I have been thinking. I said as much at our blog right after I heard the Austin police and the Obama spokesperson splitting hairs.
Posted by: Ruchira | Feb 19, 2010 1:10:11 PM
The term now has virtually nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor, especially his or her religious identity.
That doesn't make the word "meaningless" -- it just has a different meaning than he'd like it to have. Happens all the time.
Posted by: Dave M | Feb 19, 2010 1:15:44 PM
Yeah, Dave. Same as gay and straight sex. The act is disgusting or "normal" depending on who is doing it with whom.
Posted by: Ruchira | Feb 19, 2010 1:28:27 PM
@Dave M: he is referring to how the word has been spun and contextualized by the US media...and I agree that the word now carries the subtext of 'Muslim' which has been fed to us since 9/11...all of this is merely done to coerce an easily led population into willingly discarding their liberties
Posted by: anechoic | Feb 19, 2010 1:33:30 PM
Of course I do agree with his broader claim. Just picking nits with his formulation.
Posted by: Dave M | Feb 19, 2010 1:37:15 PM
A Pakistani news channel reported it yesterday commenting with a sigh of relief "Thank God it was an white American Christin! Can you imagine if this had been an American of Pakistani descent or a muslim! The US would have been in a lockdown!"
Posted by: m | Feb 19, 2010 4:31:26 PM
1. I believe he had undeclared money the IRS was questionin.
2. He is copycat: got idea from 9/11 planes.
3. Some sympathizers now see him as heroic--but do not identify by burning down their houses.
4. He was somewhat like jihadists: he too an engineer.
5. He should have done what the very wealthy do: conceal money offshore.
Posted by: fred lapides | Feb 19, 2010 6:57:17 PM
Now all we need is a person of muslim heritage to duplicate the act, and have his suicide note read simply "So is THIS terrorism?"
Posted by: builder | Feb 19, 2010 11:25:43 PM
The answer would be yes.
The only reason Joe Stack's act isn't called terrorism is because there's no money to be made in doing so.
Posted by: m | Feb 20, 2010 12:34:38 AM
This single act of violence does not represent a sustained campaign designed to instill fear in the populace, so it's not terrorism.
Posted by: Sue Dunham | Feb 20, 2010 3:16:21 PM
It is not just religious identification. It is anything that threatens the establishment or corporations, i.e. direct action by activists that does not cause ANY bodily harm, but possible loss of income (read: Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act).
The term is used to instill fear, maintain control and squash dissent.
Posted by: yogichi | Feb 20, 2010 10:29:59 PM
Post a comment