The Vegas Massacre and the Self-Serving US Definition of Terrorism
The Trump White House has once again accused Iran of supporting terrorist groups, claiming the country’s terrorist activities continue.
Share It :
Washington claims Iran is supporting those militant groups fighting against ISIL in Iraq and Syria. It says Tehran has increased its military aid to the Syrian government and Shiite fighters in Iraq, and that it has no choice but to decertify the Iran nuclear deal.
It’s ironic though that the White House makes no mention of Saudi Arabia, which is the main supporter of ISIL and other terrorist groups in the region and has just been blacklisted by the UN for murdering innocent children in Yemen.
The US itself stands accused of supporting the Saudi coalition in the illegal Yemen War plus training and arming terrorist groups and secessionists in Iraq and Syria.
This is while Iran has been bashed primarily for fighting against the extremist groups that the White House says are the world’s biggest terrorist threat i.e., ISIL and Takfiri militants. Washington, however, is reluctant to name Iran as the biggest single force fighting against these terrorists that it says are a threat to the West.
This underscores, yet again, that terrorism is simultaneously the single most meaningless and most manipulated word in the American political lexicon. The term has nothing to do with the act itself and everything to do with the identity of the actor and his religious identity.
By the same token, the word has come to mean: “A Muslim or a nation that fights invasion, occupation, terrorism and racism, or protests peacefully against and expresses hostility towards the expansionist policies of the United States, Israel and their allies.
That is why all of this media confusion and doubt arose this week over whether the person who perpetrated the classic act of terrorism in Las Vegas should be called a terrorist:
In the eyes of Western media, the old white gunman who shot over 58 people dead in Las Vegas, injured hundreds more and then killed himself could be charged with homicide and illegal possession of firearms. 64-year old retiree Stephen Paddock was not a Muslim and was not acting on behalf of standard Muslim grievances against the US, and thus does not fit the “definition” of terrorist.
Yet if an American Muslim “argues” that violence against the US is justified due to American violence aimed at the Muslim world, that person is a terrorist who deserves assassination. And if the US military invades a Muslim country, Muslims who live there and who fight back against the invaders are also labeled terrorists. The same rule applies to Iran for its lawful support for Iraq and Syria in their fight against ISIL and Al-Qaeda.
In any case, in light of the Vegas massacre, the word “terrorism” is once again being used so inconsistently and so manipulatively by the Global West and their media lackeys that it no longer has any discernible meaning at all. It’s a waste of precious time to say more than this.
