[A] Way Out: Part II of II

A sickness is an imbalance in a living system. The human world, the political and social and economic systems that we rely upon, are experiencing a worsening sickness of imbalance. As it approaches a fixation this -- captial I -- Imbalance splits humans into castes, the upper echelon that controls virtually everything including ideas, justice, and freedom. The lower echelon, which grows in number by the daily, are merely subjects in this scenario. The subjects of the most terrible aspects of the Imbalance, civilian populations under occupation by overwhelming powers, find that their voice are heard only when the violations that meet them at their doorstep are met by violence. Lacking any semblance of power as defined by those above in the Imbalance, those on the lower end resort to the basest of tactics to effect change in their intolerable situation. They resort to maximizing the effects of their attacks in both the physical and psychological dimensions. They resort to meeting their terror with terror.

Certainly the best way to effect change is not in bombings or in killing or in violation of any basic human right or dignity. However, because, the majority of those on the higher end of the Imbalance slumber against the demand for change, acts that are taken to wake this mass from slumber are jarring, irregular, and impactful. The tragedy is that, on both sides of the Imbalance there is a firm belief in deterrence. It is believed that, in this manner, can change be made effectively. That, in ensuring that there is no means to return to the life lived before, an attack utilized to effect change be successful. That, in directly relating the pain and suffering that is visited upon "the other," can the one be caused to change. Terror has proven an effective means of resistance to overwhelming power in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Lebanon, and in other conflicts. The social, political, and economic aims of this same resistance have been met, however with disdain, discredit, and destruction. In resisting the resisters, the American government has engaged in some very questionable actions. In many respects American forces have become the enemies, past and present, they have fought. It is for this reason that, for the bidirectional terror to stop, and an effective solution to be attained, the "terrorists" must be granted some victory.

This assertion is based in three distinctions. The first must be that of terrorist. By definition, by reason and logic alone, a "terrorist" exists as manifestation of opposition the Imbalance. Both from above and from below, terror is an instrument of manipulation, a destabilizing force. On the lower end of the Imbalance, "the terrorists" are the unempowered, the destitute, who seek change by any means necessary. Their cause is not the subject of justice as they cannot set the agenda for justice. Terror then, is the only means to manipulate the agenda of those above who act with violence against them. Properly, it is asymmetrical warfare; but, warfare, being an enterprise of massive expense, is only symmetrical when great powers battle one another. Those that engage in terrorism beneath the Imbalance, an evolutionary element of guerilla warfare, cannot engage in symmetrical warfare in the contemporary world. Thus, the Imbalance is exposed.

On the upper end of the Imbalance, "terrorists" are the great military powers waging that is properly called asymmetrical warfare against "much weaker enemies." While, from a civilian point of view, these acts of invasion, warfare, military engagement, occupation, or simply military-backed corporate enterprise, are seen as acts of terrorism, they are not referred to as such in common language. These engagements are seen as 'business as usual.' Terrible acts, not "terrorism," are used to control and pacify foreign populations and to -- literally -- pave the way for enterprise. The agenda in foreign nations is, thus, manipulated. These acts are undertaken at massive expense and are direct descendants of the colonial and imperial enterprises of days long past. They are no more just now than they were then, however, because the asymmetry favors those higher in the Imbalance, it is accepted.

An imbalance of power is a clear element of many, or all, of the conflicts in world. Those who fight a deservingly to regulate the balance of power operate on a timetable in competition with the immediacy of other competing interests. The plight of the unempowered is constantly pushed aside in favour of more lucrative interests, therefore the unempowered are required to step forward to make their plight appear to be more immediate. The only means of achieving this, thus far, has been death and destruction. Those on the lower end of the Imbalance cannot make the military or social or political expenditures required; not in time and not in dollars. As such they are characterized as terrorists. This would not be a misnomer. Those above in the Imbalance, first, cannot understand their plight of those below. Second, those above in the Imbalance set the standard for what is good and just. Further, it is impossible for those above in the Imbalance comprehend the magnitude and effect of the Imbalance. So it is that the "terrorist" is, by definition, the enemy and against all that is good, and only attacks from beneath in the Imbalance.

The second definition of import is successful. Here, success relates to communication of a message. With any action, any undertaking of the human mind, there is a message be communicated. The message is often misinterpreted. A successful communication is one that is symbolic, delivering a message that is clear. The "official story," that America was attacked "because they hate US" is wavering in its veracity, credibility, and reality. Perhaps the architects of the "official story" got it wrong, like the many other messages similarly interpreted since that time. The message of the attack, over the course of nine days, was mis-/re-interpreted to fit an agenda, again, set from above in the Imbalance. As a result, the message, the reasons behind it and the changes sought by those who sacrificed their lives and those who were caught in the middle, were lost.

For example, the attacks of 9/11 could, easily have been carried out explicitly against the American people. Those fateful aircraft could have been hijacked the night before and directed at a baseball stadium, killing many more Americans than at the WTC or the Pentagon. Instead the attacks were carried out against the military and industrial centers of America, the airline industry being a "complex" that binds them together. In many parts of the world the WTC and the Pentagon do not symbolize free enterprise but the yoke of oppression. Further, it reduces the capacity for it to produce positive, effective change in the world; it reduces the capacity for the attack to be successful. No violent attack is undertaken for the sole purpose of that violent attack. Terrorists are not serial killers, though being maligned by many lenses, the groups that support them are characterized as such.

Discredit for the message is followed by discredit for the messenger. Manipulations of every order are made in favour of those self-same powers being attacked. So, successful communication of a message is defeated by the reinforced ignorance of those attacked, those for whom the message was intent. As long as the "victims" don't understand the reasons behind the attack, reactions taken are blind and, regardless of the effect, justified. Terrorist acts are lumped together as a cancerous mass of "enemies of freedom." The possibility of delivering credible, though opposite, messages to those in superior position is marginal. Finally, the message remains only with the messenger and the two parties are driven farther apart from understanding one another.

The final definition of import is effect. Previously, there was mention of a message in the conduct of a terrorist attack. The desired effect is that a message, if conveyed in a language that is universal, will cause a desired outcome. If the cause of change is an attack, it is proven effective if the outcome is not a violent response. David toppled Goliath; Goliath did not strike back. Terrorists on the lower end of the Imbalance are in the role of David. It is this sort of effect that opposition groups seek to achieve. The political, social, or economic aims of those on lower end of the Imbalance are meant to counter those of an overwhelming power. Without any means of equalization, only activism, guerilla warfare and, terror remain as options. The message is, but has not been, carried by the words of the participants and sometime victims. In these instances, especially where an overwhelming military power is involved and people are being oppressed and are dying, activism is abandoned in favor of a violent response to a violent situation.

There are many problems and conflicts to be broached in the world. The Imbalance is at the root of many, if not all, of them. The Imbalance of power and authority; the Imbalance of wealth, health, and resource; the Imbalance of cultural identity; and the Imbalance of basic dignity are examples. Terrorism, poverty, environmental destruction and warfare are manifestations of this Imbalance. There is no one outside the purview of the Imbalance; it affects all people everywhere. Some, however, benefit from it while many more are injured by it.

The cycle of cause and effect is vicious. With each effect – a bombing, an air strike, a hostage taking, a sanction – there is a cause. Humans react to the situations that they are placed in, often with righteous indignation, seeking to balance what is so imbalanced. To reduce the sickness felt at such imbalance. The path chosen, thus far, has been a predictable one within the cycle. There remains the path not taken, to concede a single victory to the hated enemy, before all are consumed.