LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Taking a myopic view of terrorism

Regarding Debbie Hilton’s letter on terrorism, surely ma’am, you are not implying that only Muslims, are terrorists are you? Because that’s the impression I got from reading your letter entitled “What God do terrorists serve?” that ran in the Sunday, Nov. 5 edition of this very publication.

Maybe you are not aware of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition of the word “terrorism.” Merriam-Webster tells us that Terrorism is a noun meaning and I quote “The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”. Notice there is no reference to religion, religious beliefs or the name of any particular spiritual divine figure.

Just the “systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.

In your letter, you ask which God terrorists serve saying “He surely isn’t the loving, merciful God I know, the one who suffered on the cross and gave his life to cleanse and forgive all sin.”. I can only assume that you are unaware of our nation’s long and sorted history or that you are very myopic in your world view.

Of the many historic uses of terrorism that has occurred by the hands Americans and endorsed by our government, the most glaring one I can point out is the treatment of Native Americans — many times leading to the outright slaughter and annihilation of entire Native villages, including women and children. This was often done in the name of your “loving and merciful God” because the land must be cleared of the “unclean savages” to make room to the more “civilized” Christian settlers.

Although not American in nature, I must ask you if the Catholic members of the Irish Republican Army who have detonated car bombs and caused mass destruction in an attempt to coerce the British government to return the rest of Ireland to the Irish not guilty of terrorism? I mean, they are Catholic and serve the same “loving and merciful” God you do, they aren’t Muslims.

I’m having a hard time understanding how their actions are terrorism according to Merriam-Webster definition but, according to the tone of your letter, they can’t be because they aren’t Muslim.

In closing, I would like to propose that you have been directly victimized by terrorism. Not by ISIS, Al Queda or any other Muslim only terrorist organization but, by a certain ilk of media and American political figures and dare I say, even by the leadership of your own church.

You see, you have been so manipulated that you are terrified of Muslims.

You believe the New American definition that says it’s not terrorism unless it’s perpetrated by the hands of a Muslim. All to coerce you into supporting as you put it in your latest feat of right wing propaganda letter writing, “Close the gates, block the borders and at least try to eliminate part of the problem.”

Please allow me to ask, aside from becoming an isolationist nation, how else do you propose to “try to eliminate part of the problem”? Would you be in favor of taking an approach similar the Nov. 9, 1938 Kristallnacht?

Because honestly, your letter almost has the flavor of someone who would have advocated for Kristallnacht back in ‘38.

Ricky Shehorn
Hartly

You are encouraged to leave relevant comments but engaging in personal attacks, threats, online bullying or commercial spam will not be allowed. All comments should remain within the bounds of fair play and civility. (You can disagree with others courteously, without being disagreeable.) Feel free to express yourself but keep an open mind toward finding value in what others say. To report abuse or spam, click the X in the upper right corner of the comment box.