August 19, 2012
The sham “terrorism expert” industry
A highly ideological, jingoistic clique masquerades as objective scholars, all to justify US militarism.
Glenn Greenwald's last column for Salon before he moves to The Guardian:
There is no term more potent in our political discourse and legal landscape than “Terrorism.” It shuts down every rational thought process and political debate the minute it is uttered. It justifies torture (we have to get information from the Terrorists); due-process-free-assassinations even of our own citizens (Obama has to kill the Terrorists); and rampant secrecy (the Government can’t disclose what it’s doing or have courts rule on its legality because the Terrorists will learn of it), and it sends people to prison for decades (material supporters of Terrorism).
It is a telling paradox indeed that this central, all-justifying word is simultaneously the most meaningless and therefore the most manipulated. It is, as I have noted before, a word that simultaneously means nothing yet justifies everything. Indeed, that’s the point: it is such a useful concept precisely because it’s so malleable, because it means whatever those with power to shape discourse want it to mean. And no faction has helped this process along as much as the group of self-proclaimed “terrorism experts” that has attached itself to think tanks, academia, and media outlets. They enable pure political propaganda to masquerade as objective fact, shining brightly with the veneer of scholarly rigor. The industry itself is a fraud, as are those who profit from and within it.
More here. [Thanks to Kris Kotarski.]
Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:31 PM | Permalink






















Comments
And let's not forget that it is one of the largest businesses with a very long history.
Posted by: Dredd | Aug 20, 2012 9:10:14 AM
aka fundamentalism with footnotes
Posted by: Martin | Aug 20, 2012 7:37:57 PM
Alleged terror mastermind Peter "CNN" Bergen has a graph that purports to show that zero civilians have been killed in Pakistan this year by drone attacks. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism that keeps track of drone strikes described Bergen's bogus data as "factually inaccurate."
Also what is "a militant" and how does he or she differ from a civilian? What about civilians-with-militant-leanings or somewhat-militant-civilians or civilians-who-look-like-militants? Categorically listing a target as a "militant" is more about propaganda than truth.
Posted by: j_93 | Aug 21, 2012 1:24:01 AM
re this excerpt: [Richard Jackson] has documented that most self-proclaimed “terrorism experts” simply ignore the primary cause of the violence they claim to study: “most terrorism scholars, politicians and the media don’t seem to ‘know’ that terrorism is most often caused by military intervention overseas, and not religion, radicalization, insanity, ideology, poverty or such like” — even though “the Pentagon has known it for years.”
...I personally relate to a broader context and would recommend a talk given by Nils Gilman on the topic of Deviant Globalization, aka The Global Illicit Economy.
It can be found on Fora.TV and here -- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3173247273890946684#
Posted by: LWP | Aug 21, 2012 1:51:28 AM
Post a comment