Ace points to this article. It seems that the terrorists are now admitting what I've been saying since 9/11: the left encourages terrorism. Hamas: Left Gave us Confidence to Continue Suicide Bombings

Yissocharov outlined the general consensus among Hamas leadership he had interviewed for the book: “The Israeli left-wing and your ‘peace-camp’ are what ultimately encouraged us to continue to carry out suicide bombings. We tried, through our attacks, to create fragmentation and dissention within Israeli society, and the left-wing encouraged us in that regard. When we heard about the ‘Pilot’s Letter,’ the refuse-niks and the elite soldiers refusing to serve [in Judea, Samaria and Gaza –ed.] it strengthened our confidence in the effectiveness of the suicide bomber. The disengagement from Gaza is proof of our victory. The fact that Sharon is willing to withdraw unconditionally is basically equivalent to raising a white flag and retreating. Only by force are we able to teach the other side what to do.”

Two photos of two dead men. One makes you angry, the other happy.

Why?

Context.

Now imagine the photo of Paul Johnson again. You know nothing of him, nothing of the events surrounding his death. You are also a Muslim. Under the photo is the following caption:

Enemy of Islam killed for his role in the murder of Muslims by Apache helicopters.
Would that make you feel differently about his death?

Now imagine the photo of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin again. You know nothing of him, nothing of the events surrounding his death. You are also a Muslim. Under the photo is the following caption:

Holy warrior murdered by Imperialist forces.

Would that make you feel differently about his death?

Context makes a world of difference in your emotional response to the same events. Context is intimately connected to the words we use. This is why propaganda is so important if we wish to win the war on terror. We must stop the enemy propaganda machine. For another example of this, check out the picture in this post. This is what Arabs see everyday on TV. No wonder they hate us.

So, do I really believe that Noam Chomsky is responsible for Mass Murder? Again, from that earlier post:

No. Noam Chomsky is used here as a symbol of a discourse. This is a discourse, a way of speaking, in which terms such as imperialism, neo-colonialism, and crusaderism are used to describe America to the rest of the world. It is a discourse which suggests that Israel is a colonial puppet of America in the Middle East. It is a discourse which suggests that the Middle East is under attack from America. It is the discourse that is to blame.

Noam Chomsky is only to blame for that portion of the discourse which he propogates by the language he uses. The discoure is much larger than Noam Chomsky.

The words we use matter. Via Allah (hat tip Cameron Wood) comes this bit of context from CNN:

Almost half of all Saudis said in a poll conducted last year that they have a favorable view of Osama bin Laden's sermons and rhetoric

Osama bin Laden and the discourses of the Left have many differences. But in the language they use to describe the world, we find striking similarities. Take out all the stuff about Allah, and you find that the differences become relatively meaningless.

This is from bin Laden:

Our nation [ed note: umma meaning the collective of Muslims and Muslim countries] has been tasting this humiliation and contempt for more than 80 years.

Its sons are being killed, its blood is being shed, its holy places are being attacked, and it is not being ruled according to what God has decreed.

Secular translation: Muslim nations are under attack by imperialist forces and suffer under the brutal hand of colonialism.

See Chomsky's view of US colonialism here. Are there major differences in the language they use?

How brutal is the US, according to bin Laden?
One million Iraqi children have thus far died in Iraq although they did not do anything wrong.
Why did they die? The cause is the US.

Tell me how Noam Chomsky fundamentally disagrees with this? Here is his view of who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq.

On the Palestinian question? Bin Laden:

Israeli tanks and tracked vehicles also enter to wreak havoc in Palestine, in Jenin, Ramallah, Rafah, Beit Jala, and other Islamic areas and we hear no voices raised or moves made.

An interview posted at "USCRUSADE" with Chomsky. Are there major differences in outlook?

Now, suppose all the images you see of dead terrorists in Palestine are juxtaposed with the words used by Chomsky or by Islamic fundamentalists like bin Laden. Would you agree with this statement from bin Laden?

The least that one can describe these people [Americans] is that they are morally depraved.

They champion falsehood, support the butcher against the victim, the oppressor against the innocent child.

May God mete them the punishment they deserve.

If the world was as the Left described it, wouldn't it be just to attack America?

In WWII the US routinely bombed factories engaged in the production of war material. This was just.

If the Saudi government is a tool of American Imperialism, if helicopters are used by that government to oppress Muslims, if Paul Johnson was working for the forces of imperialism to oppress Muslims, then why should his death be seen as anything more than just recompense? Here are the words of the terrorists who killed Paul Johnson, as posted at Talk Left:

This infidel [Paul Johnson] received his fair punishment in this world before moving to the other world. He got to taste some of what the Muslims suffered from the Apache American helicopters that grilled them with their fire flames, embers, and missiles. The American infidel was one of four people in charge of the maintenance and system development of those helicopters.

If this is your worldview, if these are the words you use to describe the world, at best you will say you disagree with the means, but not necessarily the ends. You will claim that Paul Johnson's death was tragic, but no more tragic than that of Abdulaziz al-Moqrin.

From bin Laden:

As for the United States, I tell it and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies leave the land of Mohammed

The Left is in fundamental agreement with bin Laden. The US is an imperialist force. The US is the great oppressor of our age.

The discourse runs deeper, though. Much deeper. Describing the US as an Imperialist aggressor permeates all aspects of Muslim discourse. It is prominent even in quarters that reject bin Ladenism. From an article in Islam-Online, on the recent announcement to launch another Islamic satellite station:

The scholar said the project is part of efforts to counter the "colonial war" against Muslims, bearing in mind its economic, social, military and religious repercussions.

For an even deeper account of the narrative used by both the Left and Terrorist sympathizers, scan this website. Do you think it a mere coincidence that an image [see left column] of a Middle Eastern man, sword in hand, is stomping on an American flag is right next to a promotion for Michael Moore's new movie?

The reason that so many Leftist intellectuals are cited is because there is a community forged when the same words are used to describe the same events. Even when one rejects terrorism as an unjust means, the language which shapes the context of conflict in the Middle East is the same. There is a reason Noam Chomsky is routinely cited as a source of authority for those that oppose the US presence in the Middle East. It is the same reason why Americans find it difficult to gain cooperation from the Iraqi population, or that Saudi Arabia finds in gaining the cooperation of it's own citizens. There is a shared view, between the Left and between terrorist sympathizers, of the Americans as oppressors. This view is the product of images plus a dialogue that describes those images in such a way as to produce an emotional response akin to what I felt when I saw what happened to Paul Johnson.

Saudi Arabia is mounting a campaign to reduce support for terrorists: (via the Commissar):

The Saudi government's intense public relations campaign to discourage people from supporting extremists isn't swaying some of its citizens, who still consider the militants heroes despite appeals from Muslim religious leaders.

But how can the Saudi government simultaneously try to discourage support for barbarisms against Americans while simutaneously propogating a discourse that describes the American occupation of Iraq as leading to the death of 13,000 innocent civillians? If America is guilty as charged, if America is the cause, then why not fight Americans wherever they may be found?

The words we use matter. The words we use create context. Context matters.

The next time you hear an academic use words like colonialism or imperialsm, the next time you hear an intellectual use words that suggest America as the cause of so much suffering in the world, the next time a Leftist speaks of the death of children at the hands of America, don't let them go unchallenged. Remind them of the consequences of their words.

Loose lips may not always sink ships, but they do create the context in which it becomes easier to justify sinking ships.

Loose lips create context. Context, may indeed, sink ships.

Linked at the Traffic Jam.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:28 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 1638 words, total size 11 kb.