The war on terror is actually a war of terror

Terror, definition: Violence committed or threatened by a group to intimidate or coerce a population, as for military or political purposes and the ability to instill intense fear.

Photo: The war on terror is actually a war of terror

In the age of instant stimulation lies sell easily. The best salesmen of hypocrisy have always been the politicians, and the media has always been their stage.

If analyzed objectively, the war on terror is actually a war of terror, launched on a public held hostage to its own fear. For the past five years that it has been conducted, unnecessary casualties have only increased; rights, being the biggest casualty of them all. The war has provided comfort to the most fearful amongst us, because its being broadcast in a language they understand.

The vocabulary of this war uses terms such as "axis of evil," or "evil doers" and a few times "crusade" but mostly "they hate us". The rational world isn't fearful of being hated, its fearful of hating, so the current terminology provides support to inflamed prejudices of the truly scared. Sadly that is why they don't see anything wrong with killing fellow human beings. Prejudice can and does devoid feelings of fellowship...

The definition of terrorism gave us the understanding that it is a crime to create fear. A terrorist does nothing more than terrorize. Someone who uses violence or the threat of violence against civilians, in order to influence political change, is a terrorist - especially when other means are available.

The interment of Japanese Americans is an classic example. A forcible relocation of approximately a hundred thousand people from their homes and businesses to hastily constructed housing complexes, called "War Relocation Camps". The authorization for this behavior came from a executive order which allowed local military commanders to declare "military areas" as "exclusion zones". From which anyone maybe excluded.

This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and most of Oregon and Washington. In 1944, the US Supreme Court upheld the constitutional rights of removal and detention, claiming that it is permissible to curtail the civil rights of a racial group when there is a "pressing public necessity."

During their quest to conquer Europe and rearrange the ethnic composition of eastern Europe, the Nazis used deportation by train, to forcibly remove members of ethnic groups from the territory on which they lived. Gypsies, Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses, Polish and Russians were rounded up, with hysterical frenzied support of the German population.

Naturally the Nazis attempted to disguise their intentions. They sought to portray the deportations as a "resettlement", for security concerns. But the world became aware of what was truly going on.

Germans themselves once aroused to the atrocities, began to protest, they found themselves being labeled unpatriotic, un-German, traitors and bleeding hearts. These labels where applied with extreme prejudice, by those that value their own, and only their own, opinions. Unfortunately, German resistance to theNazis has always been looked at as too little too late.

That viewpoint has come about due to unquestionable belief in Government being right. We will take the word of Nazis that every German was behind them, over fact.

How did such horrific and tragic events occur. It can be attributed to what I prefer to call the 'Hobbes Syndrome' Thomas Hobbes was born in Wiltshire England in 1588. According to Hobbes, a society is people beneath the complete authority of the state. All individuals in society must be committed to the authority to ensure security and life. This syndrome infests those that believe that security and freedom are in conflict.

Those that suffer from the 'Hobbes Syndrome' believed the Jews of Germany had too much freedom, they had bank accounts, and were believed to be funneling money to the enemies of the Fatherland. This affliction spread and caused the belief that the Japanese in America had too much freedom - they had phones, all with direct lines to Emperor Hirohito.

In a free society a person has been elevated above and beyond animal suspicion and selfishness. A society burdened with fear is a society on the edge. An administration built and supported on prejudicial fear can bring about barbaric behavior.

In a free society rules are in place. Those that do not understand this would have the Taliban mentality. The Taliban believed in their purity and everyone else's undisciplined decadence, they believed no one else had any morals or rules. The Taliban used terror to re-introduce fear, which guaranteed obedience, so they could set up a social order they were comfortable with. An order which guaranteed their freedom, comfort, and sense of security, but only for them.

The Taliban came to power with its ambitious venture to break the chaotic impasse in Afghanistan and with the promise of security and peace. The Taliban were, not surprisingly, extremely callous when it came to successfully running a country. They failed at providing jobs, proper healthcare, rights to minorities and even proper management of disaster relief for their own population. Little listening posts where set-up, neighbors were encouraged to spy on neighbors. Rather than pursuing responsible good governance, they instead pursued ruthless oppression.

This self centered behavior comes from animalistic needs for self preservation. It lacks any humanity what so ever, it lacks all common sense. A false belief in enemies becomes the norm, imaginary victimization becomes the rationale to believe the authority under all circumstance.

Society, especially in a free society, has no choice but to question how it is being governed. That is part of the freedom, not only of a nation, but of our souls. Souls are individual, not tribal - after all, its the soul that gets judged.

The appropriate conduct of a elected leader would be to calm and reassure the nation. It is completely irresponsible to speak in a tone fashioned after some apocalyptic sermon, riling the population, into a frightened passion for obedience. A leaders responsibility is to soothe his citizens. Not terrorize them.

Harris Brio
Canada