Inflated language — let's call nearly every Adam Henry a terrorist?

© 2019 Peter Free

 

27 November 2019

 

 

An example of Military Industrial Complex "thinking"

 

This is (we can infer) what the United States' self-alleged world hegemony is for:

 

 

The US will legally designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorist groups, President Donald Trump says.

 

The move would enable a wider scope of US action. Mr Trump also said he had told Mexico the US was ready to "go in and clear out" the cartels.

 

In response Mexico's foreign minister said his country would not allow any "violation of national sovereignty".

 

© 2019 BBC, Trump to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorists, BBC News (27 November 2019)

 

 

The moral? — Let's kill everybody — have fun — and be done with it?

 

I'm guessing that a substantial portion of the American population will go along with this questionably expanded national security definition of terrorism.

 

Insofar, of course, as we individually do not have to do any of the necessary bleeding and dying.

 

The peculiar combination of institutionalized US greed and propagandized fear — imposed on and supported by the public's shared cowardice — is a toxic combination for virtually everyone else on the planet.

 

Recent decades have seen the United States flashing its "big dick" with disastrous results to everyone except our profiteering Military Industrial Complex and its gain-seeking toadies.

 

The metaphorical parallel with a biological cancer that recruits blood supply is apt.

 

Another rationally defensible metaphor is the one raised by asking how the United States distinguishes itself from violence-spewing cartels.

 

The difference is what, exactly — once one admits that both operate in pursuit of financial profit?

 

The last step — in crafting these semantic similes — is questioning whether the US can rationally distinguish itself even from legitimately labeled terror groups.

 

It is the question of achieving clear-eyed legitimacy that is the difficult one.

 

When results on the ground are essentially the same in comparing the wakes left by both groups — what "true" relevance do our allegedly "moral" or "logical" rationalizations have?

 

This is why the concept of evil takes up so much space in ethical thinking.

 

Our ability to self-delude, combined with our greed, is viciously blinding.

 

This is not a good brew.