Terrorism

Terrorism: “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.”

This is the first definition on the web sites I checked, of which the events of 9/11 are a textbook example. But if we think of terrorists only as people with swarthy complexions and unusual names we’re overlooking many, if not a majority, of them. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was also a terrorist act even though the perpetrators were Caucasians with ordinary surnames of McVeigh and Nichols.

If one accepts the fact that all terrorists don’t face east at religious rituals it becomes clear that we are now experiencing a new wave of terrorism in the aftermath of the passage of health care reform legislation. While no major material damage has yet taken place, the words “threatened use” make the definition fit the current offenders to a proverbial T, a textbook example being the “militia” group from Michigan.   

The fact that many of those whose interests are entwined with those of the Republicans benefitted from the events of 9/11 does not by itself impugn their patriotism or conviction in opposing terrorism. Neither does the fact that these interests are being served, in many cases unknowingly, by today’s culprits. In my admittedly biased opinion the concern of many of us is directly related to the ethnicity of the perpetrators. But when the WTC buildings collapsed and the Murrah building fragments started flying, wealth, politics and race were irrelevant to the identity of the victims.             

The rhetorical battle now underway is over which party’s response to current domestic terrorism is most appropriate. This is an attempt to shift some of the culpability from the terrorists to domestic political opposition. Worse than being non productive, it is counterproductive in misdirecting our much needed attention and energy.

To most responsible Americans of all political stripes prevention of terrorism is high on their list of priorities. For opposing domestic political forces to argue over on whose list it is higher, divides us where we should be united in a common purpose. I suggest the leaders of both parties in both Houses of Congress get together behind closed doors and craft a statement to which they can agree. Preventing terrorism is in their interest as well as the nation’s and is ill served by a contest over who can come up with the best choice of words.