Terrorism
Published in El Nacional
(Dominican Republic) on 22 April 2013
by Violeta Yangüela (link to
original)
The Royal Spanish Academy states that "terrorism" means: 1. Ruling through terror; 2. A series of violent acts carried out in order to instill fear. In English, the Oxford Dictionary states: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
It seems President Barack Obama has difficulty saying the word "terrorism." In his first media appearance after the "events" that took place in Boston, the president referred to "explosions at the Boston Marathon" and asserted, "We still do not know who did this or why."
Two simultaneous explosions at a mass gathering on a public holiday with a patriotic bent? The explanation seems fairly obvious.
On Sept. 11 of last year, right in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign, the United States ambassador to Libya was killed, alongside three U.S. diplomatic personnel. On that occasion, the official version of events was that the attack was a demonstration of protest against a video considered by Muslims to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad. The reality was otherwise: A group of Islamic militants killed an ambassador and his colleagues.
Now, and despite a palpable reality, the president wonders why and who. The following day he stated, "The FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism." The FBI! He then elucidated: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror."
It would seem that "terrorism" evokes the image of Islam, which, in turn, evokes the war on terror, irrevocably identified with George W. Bush. Creating distance between these ideas through the respective presidents’ surnames thus became a necessary measure.
Supposedly, George Bush’s war on terror ended with the death of Osama bin Laden. Conversely, for Obama, relations and cooperation between America and Islam are to be based on what Islam is, not what it is not. In his speech in Cairo, he made this explicit: "The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind." The problem is that they are not innocents; they are infidels!
In Obama’s definition, "terrorism" implies a reason. In Spanish, it is "to instill fear.” In English, it involves a "political aim." Hence it would seem the problem is not why, but who.
Perhaps on this occasion, that "who" could explain to President Obama that the good Muslim obeys the Holy Quran, which enshrines the killing of infidels.
Is this what Tamerlan and Dzhokhar represent?
It seems President Barack Obama has difficulty saying the word "terrorism." In his first media appearance after the "events" that took place in Boston, the president referred to "explosions at the Boston Marathon" and asserted, "We still do not know who did this or why."
Two simultaneous explosions at a mass gathering on a public holiday with a patriotic bent? The explanation seems fairly obvious.
On Sept. 11 of last year, right in the midst of Obama’s re-election campaign, the United States ambassador to Libya was killed, alongside three U.S. diplomatic personnel. On that occasion, the official version of events was that the attack was a demonstration of protest against a video considered by Muslims to denigrate the Prophet Muhammad. The reality was otherwise: A group of Islamic militants killed an ambassador and his colleagues.
Now, and despite a palpable reality, the president wonders why and who. The following day he stated, "The FBI is investigating it as an act of terrorism." The FBI! He then elucidated: "Any time bombs are used to target innocent civilians it is an act of terror."
It would seem that "terrorism" evokes the image of Islam, which, in turn, evokes the war on terror, irrevocably identified with George W. Bush. Creating distance between these ideas through the respective presidents’ surnames thus became a necessary measure.
Supposedly, George Bush’s war on terror ended with the death of Osama bin Laden. Conversely, for Obama, relations and cooperation between America and Islam are to be based on what Islam is, not what it is not. In his speech in Cairo, he made this explicit: "The Holy Quran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind." The problem is that they are not innocents; they are infidels!
In Obama’s definition, "terrorism" implies a reason. In Spanish, it is "to instill fear.” In English, it involves a "political aim." Hence it would seem the problem is not why, but who.
Perhaps on this occasion, that "who" could explain to President Obama that the good Muslim obeys the Holy Quran, which enshrines the killing of infidels.
Is this what Tamerlan and Dzhokhar represent?
The author is clearly blinded with bigotry that doesn’t allow her to educate herself on one of the world’s biggest religions – Islam. The word infidel was actually introduced by the Christian crusaders and the Christians and the Jews are referred to as “People of the Book” in the Quran. It’s amazing how fast some people blame Islam for actions of a minute fraction of a 1.6 billion community without even realizing or taking time to learn what Islam actually teaches. Yet, killing innocents with drones on almost daily basis isn’t terrorism to them, occupying other people’s lands isn’t terrorism..how sad.