One of the prolific academics involved in societal analysis, particularly of American Foreign Policy, western media propaganda, and an expert in relaying conventional wisdom’s of predominant conceptions held by those who believe their media has something worth offering of substance, Noam Chomsky brilliantly explains the psychological basis of the average American from media pundits on down in the manner of retaliating against those who intellectually tackle the issue of terrorism
We felt here that this particular clip was worth expounding upon this point as this travesty must be eliminated in our view, in order for some form or level of understanding to be brought into perspective which the American media continues to deprive is audience of.
Anyone who reviews the above can understand the nature of his content. What we wish to do is to expose the current media debacle that currently pervades more or less the conservative sphere of ideological thinking as can be easily reviewed through conservative ideologues which does not require any mention of their names as they are well known to many.
At any rate, the most staggering defiance of truth through the manipulation of reality is the neo-con ploy, which is now being accepted by conventional wisdom across the spectrum, is the articulation to the public regarding the “basis” for the war on terrorism, namely, its validity. You see, the modern distorted interpretation for the basis of the validity of the war on terror is the complete and utter exoneration of any aggression, terrorism, or tyranny imposed by the target states (and subsequently its people) by American Foreign Policy. In other words, when these pundits and ideologues advocate to the American people through the monopolized corporate media we have today, the basis of their advocacy is in convincing the American population that “we never done anything wrong” and thus they routinely say “they just hate us” and “are a bunch of fanatics who are jealous of us”. These are common slogans utilized in their faulty interpretation for why “terrorism” exists in the world, particularly in targeting America.
The following was extracted from a simple search on terrorism which we sought to find only to see the response regarding the question of the causes of terrorism.This particular one is from about.com
Although many people today believe that that religious fanaticism “causes” terrorism, it isn’t true. It may be true that religious fanaticism creates conditions that are favorable for terrorism. But we know that religious zealotry does not ’cause’ terrorism because there are many religious fanatics who do not choose terrorism or any form of violence. So there must also be other conditions that in combination provoke some people to see terrorism as an effective way of creating change in their world.
1. Replace the term “religious” with “ideological” and then the entire excerpt will be much more accurately understood if the seeker of truth is willing to incorporate all forms of fanaticism into the spectrum of the subject, for it seems the author of this was coming from a secular notion and thus eliminating non religious fanaticism from the spectrum of terrorism whereas in our Islamic view, all subjects of the same nature MUST be treated equal without double standard
2. Moreover, it has likewise confirmed that many people view that the cause for terrorism is something “inherent” in the one whom is charged with proliferating on terrorism rather than understanding that in this world, there is something called a cause and effect, and that people inherently do not do as media pundits claim, which is to simply terrorize people.
Another aspect of the media propaganda model for the cause of terrorism is “they hate us” as if people charged with terrorism or its proliferation have nothing better to do than to simply “hate” Americans, which in our view is a total rape of the truth. Simply dissecting this segment of the argument, this from its basis is faulty when we consider that even hate, has a cause and it just does not magically appear.
Another daunting and preposterous explanation on the causes of terrorism was given by Andrew McCarthy on the “NationalReview” in which he states
After 17 years of attacks, we should have learned the difference between causes of terrorism and pretexts for terrorism. Terrorism is caused, and terrorist recruitment is driven, by Islamist ideology and by American weakness in the face of terror attacks. In that sense, Senator Durbin causes more terrorism than Gitmo ever will. Terrorist organizations are encouraged when they come to believe they can win — when they come to believe they can outlast America because we lack resolve.
Thus this is another aspect in the cog of this machine to interpret reality n the pursuit of imperialist tyranny by advocating that terrorists desire to use “terror” to punk out the west. The issue is not one of resolve for we have seen the resolve of the Bush doctrine, and quite frankly the statistical estimations on the rise of terrorism increased, and logically so we might add.
Another aspect of this deception is with regard to the threat of justification. As Chomksy highlights, when one inquires with the question as to what are the causes for terrorism and analyzing this phenomenon, people for the most part demonize such rhetoric and thus erase from discussion on grounds that the mere inquiry to its causes are in fact seeking justification for the terrorists themselves. Of course as we know, this is done to completely obstruct any means to impugn ourselves as the cause which is why one of the argument of this particular topic is “we are not guilty” as Noni Darwish tried to advocate in a tabloid media film to propagandize Islam into some depiction of terrorism. She says
“Some people view the current situation with the middle east as a clash of civilizations. I think it’s more than that, way more than that. I think it’s an outright declaration of war from radical Islam on western culture, on the Judeo-Christian culture, and we should know that. It’s a declaration of war.”
Such a mind can only accept this premise if it is completely oblivious to historical precedent which is that since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the entire Muslims world reserved a reactionary status on other states foreign policy towards such Muslims in these states. An example of this is the almost 40 years of U.S. backed state sponsored terrorism carried out by the Jewish state before something like the first Intifaada came about.
In times such as these with media distortion, we are thankful for reputable men such as Chomsky for highlighting these realities that seem to be intentionally be blockaded from the sphere of the American media