If You Are Afraid, the Terrorists Have Already Won
Everyone in America should watch the August 10 episode of the show with ze frank. Spread the word. Don't abet the fear-mongers.
Comments
Seconded!
I've been making this argument since 9/11. What bugs me is how the current folks in power have exploited this fear and zefrank gets it right: They are terrorists themselves.
The video looks interesting enough that I want to watch and comment, but it will have to wait until my return from vacation. Hopefully, Jeff is in a slow posting cycle and the topic does not cycle off.
I have to comment on one item: the Bush administration, with respect to the American people, are not terrorists, unless we accept a very narrow and, I think, twisted definition of the term. Or, unless we use the word "terrorist" in the general pejorative sense it has acquired (assisted, I must note, by the administration's relatively consistent use of the word "terrorist" in place of the more precise "islamist", or "islamic fundamentalist", or "islamic fascist").
As explanation: The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "terrorism" as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". "Terror" has several meanings, including "one that inspires fear", "a cause of anxiety", and "violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands".
So, assuming that the administration "inspires fear" or is "a cause of anxiety", then they could be terrorists. I think, however, that the term "terrorist" generally means someone who is inspiring fear or causing anxiety by means of acts similar to those described in the third definition I mention. To expand "terrorist" to people who exploit fear caused by the acts of others, in my opinion, is a use of "terrorist" which is as imprecise as that in which the Bush administration has engaged.
At any rate, hope the topic is around when I get back.
Surprisingly, I find myself not all that interested in the semantics. What I find really alarming and appalling is that our politicians (and these are our politicians, of the here-and-now, not whack-jobs from some fascist history book!) are so quick to use fear to manipulate the electorate so blatantly, and that so many people seem to just unquestioningly go along with it.
See also Bruce Schneier in a similar vein.
I'm in the middle of Schneier's book, Beyond Fear, and liking it a lot. Very credible.
Plus, he and his wife throw great parties!
I have now watched the video in question.
I agree completely with Ze, or Frank, or Mr. Frank (not too sure if zefrank is a name, title, or combination) all the way up to his conclusion. At this point, he and I seem to reach opposite conclusions.
He concludes that Mr. Bush's "Islamic fascists" comment is a generalized statement which instills nebulous fear without specific information. As suggested by my earlier comments, I might agree with respect to Mr. Bush's "terrorist" references. But, I found Mr. Bush's "Islamic fascists" comments to be a surprisingly clear statement of who is the enemy. So, I find myself agreeing with all the foundation statements, then baffled by the conclusion.
I do wish that the show was more clear on what he found unclear. To isolate concepts by quotes, Mr. Bush referred to "war" by "Islamic fascists" who "will use any means" "to destroy people who love freedom" "to hurt our nation".
I find all of the concepts to be clear and true both singly and when taken as a whole. It seems that there is a war. The war involves people who are best described as Islamic fascists. They appear willing to use any means at their disposal. They want to destroy people who love freedom and they want to hurt the United States.
Alternatively, perhaps he concludes that Mr. Bush's comments are disproportionate to the actual risk of terrorism. This is suggested by the preliminary comments, but not brought into the conclusion. Again, I agree with the foundation statements, but not the conclusion.
When the Bush administration speaks of "terrorism", I find the stated risk to be disproportionate. Terrorism, in general, is not a major national security concern. Islamic fascists, on the other hand, are. They have said that they will attack American interests, have planned to do so, and have actually done so. When Mr. Bush narrows the risk to "Islamic fascists", I find the risk to be completely proportionate to the comments.
It's hard to argue with your analysis of Ze's summary statement. (I believe "Ze" is his first name, and "Frank" his last name, by the way.) However, I think that there are also many examples where the President and his administration make other statements that fear-monger to the ends of increasing their authority at costs (in civil liberties, for example) that are not proportional to the threat.
For my money, it would be nice to hear the American President shade it like this: "Islamic fascists have declared war on us. Fuck them. We do not accept. At home, we're going to go about the business of loving our freedoms and doing our business, while our intelligence and security agencies use the legitimate means at their disposal to put a stop to this shit."
I might be able to get on board with the administration's declaration of war on Islamic fascists if their actions appeared to have anything to do with combating Islamic fascism. Apart from removing the Taleban from power in Afghanistan I can think of nothing that has been done to pursue this aim.