Subversive Elements

Sometimes you try and write about things, you realize that you are over your head, and you are better off keeping your mouth such. Politics have been dominating the news recently, it really isn't my thing and I get all cranky when I write about it. But it can be fun if the whole point of your rant is to heep scorn upon those that deserve it.

Speaking of those that deserve it, Brian Williams of NBC Nightly News actually said this...outloud:

The White House and most official branches of government are ducking any substantive comment on this story, and photo analysis is going on at this and other news organizations. It is a story that will be at or near the top of our broadcast and certainly made for a robust debate in our afternoon editorial meeting, when several of us raised the point (I'll leave it to others to decide germaneness) that several U.S. presidents were at minimum revolutionaries, and probably were considered terrorists of their time by the Crown in England.

Oh Brian, thanks for leaving it to us to decide it's germaneness. Since you asked, that analogy fits like a pair of biking shorts on Michael Moore after "All-You-Can-Eat" Hotdog Night at Bill's Pork bi-Products Shack.

It is getting really hard to elevate the debate around the issues of how to confront Islamic radicals when our leading figureheads are spewing such balderdash. Its not impossible, but hard. The media doesn't bother me that much--my nose works and I can clearly identify that smell coming from their collective mouths--but this is the fodder that gets pushed around.

Anyway, we are trying to determine germaneness, less you think I don't have anything substantive to back up my snark. So, when Brian says "terrorist," I assume it can be synonymous with "subversive."

The American founding fathers were a subversive element in opposition of the crown in Britain. As a collective unit, these men wrote and distributed literature about a shocking concept centered around the idea of, "the liberty of man." They wanted to be free from the tyranny of a centralized power, thousand of miles over the ocean. In terms of the tyranny continuum, King George III was Don Knotts compared to say, Mugabe. However, there was an ideal these men stood for--liberty and the inalienable rights of man. So the continuum didn't matter; King George III might as well have been Hitler.

The colonies were filled with localized militias, and these would be the men that were available to "fight" the British Army. George Washington was given the thankless task or "organizing" these roughnecks, and the difference between his successful "insurgency" and it's failure was the huge set of brass cajones between his legs.

What wasn't done, however, was the following: the American subversives didn't send carriages strapped with TNT to London in order to kill their businessmen as they went to work in the morning. They didn't go to France to burn their embassy to the ground. They chose to fight the British Army on the battlefied, many times using guerrilla tactics to defeat them. However, in the course of events, a few loyalists were tarred and feathered (but surprisingly these tactics didn't resontate as torture with the colonial-era American public). The fight against the British was executed so that American citizens could be free to establish a government that respected individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The other "terrorists" or "subversives" are a collective unit that use guerrilla methods to instill their fundamentalist vision for mankind: the submission of men to the will of Allah. Since Allah is a bit distant and hands off in his approach, these men have taken the intiative to make this happen. Because "the rights of man" are in direct opposition to submitting to Allah, in reality it takes a strongman to bring this ideal to fruition. The natural result is men like bin-Laden, Zarqawi, Khomenei and Saddam Hussein with each on a continuum, but all, regardless of zeal, are there to take the "rights of man" away.

The tactics used by the Iranian "revolutionaries" involve the threat or the use of violence through paramilitary organizations such as Hezbollah, or the "student movement," often times against civilians. Here is the resume of Hezbollah from Wikipedia:

Hezbollah was also implicated in the suicide truck bombings that killed 241 U.S. Marines in their barracks in Beirut in 1983; the 1984 truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut that killed 24; the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome; the 1992 bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, which killed 29; and the 1994 bombing in Argentina of a Jewish community center, which killed 95. Hezbollah denies involvement in some or all of these attacks.

Each group had their defining, flagship moments. For the Americans it was tbe Boston Massacre. In the instance of the Boston Massacre, eight nervous troops opened fire on a hostile, but unarmed crowd. This event provided the Americans with a powerful rallying point to unite the colonies against British rule. During this time, a young, ambitious lawyer by the name of John Adams, defended the British soldiers in court, gaining the acquital six of the eight. Adams, who defended his enemies in court under the rule of law, would go on to become the first Vice-President of the United States of America.

The Iranians flagship moment, not including the summary execution of citizens that commit the offense of speaking their mind, would be the fundamentalist, "student" takeover of the US Embassy in 1979. There they showed the world they could bend the will of the United States to the will of Allah, by holding their representatives hostage for 366 days 444 days. The fundamentalist Iranians at the time also wanted civilians to realize that they were not safe unless they were willing to submit to the will of Allah (see Hezbollah above). In the case of the hostages or other civilians killed by suicide bombers, there was no trial and no jury; just the threat of, or actual death.

So Brian, maybe the founding fathers and the Islamic fundamentalists were seen as subversives or terrorists by their opponents. I guess it is all a matter of perspective, but that is the whole point.

Which perspective do you choose?

UPDATE: Will Collier offers his germane thoughts.

Posted by 10 fingers 6 strings at July 1, 2005 07:47 AM | TrackBack