The Terrorist War and the Arrogance of Perverts
In May, America’s Kenyan-esqe president announced the War on Terror was over. But I don’t want it to be. War is such an over-the-top production. Just a short while ago, my trustworthy teddy bear Kmart and I saw Zero Dark Thirty. That chunk of cinema centered on the War on Terror and it was very enticing, and the redhead girl, as Bambi Muse baby despot Baby Idi pointed out in his review of the film, is also remarkably pretty. The War on Terror need not and should not end. But it does require a new name. “On” is an ugly word. It starts with “o,” which is a lewd looking letter. “Ovary” has the letter “o” in it, as does “ovum” and “Obamacare” — all of these terms are either associated with girls (who can be obnoxious sometimes) or white liberals (who are always obnoxious all of the time). The new name that I (with assistance from Kmart) came up with does have an “o” in it (as you can’t spell “terror” without an “o,” it’s quite impossible) but it has banished any word commencing with that gay bitch of a letter. From this point forward, I, along with anyone with taste, will label the War on Terror the “Terrorist War.” “Terrorist” is superior to “terror” for a fountain of reasons. The main one being the sound the “ist” makes. The concluding syllable in “terrorist” sounds similar to “hiss,” which is the sound you emit anytime you encounter one of those modern, New York Times couples on the streets.
Now that there’s a satisfyingly sounding name for America’s attack against Middle Eastern countries, it’s acceptable to consider the components of this Terrorist War. A girl who has already done this in a most insightful manner isn’t just a girl, she’s a girl-boy, and her name is Judith Butler. In her book Frames of War, Judith sorts through some of the ways in which America’s continual conflict with Middle East countries and subjects is executed and explained. For Judith, the Terrorist War relates to boys-who-like-boys or, as others call them, “homosexuals.” In both the first Gulf War (the one George W. Bush’s daddy commanded) and the second Gulf War (the one George W. Bush himself commanded) “up your ass” was inscribed on America’s missiles. Judith views these two occurrences as evidence of America’s intent to “inflict the ostensible shame of sodomy on those who are bombed.” The source of the Terrorist’s supposed shame has to do with their dislike of homosexuals. A lot of the boys in the Middle East abhor the Frank Bruni Dan Savage Jason Collins race (and, truthfully, so do I). An example of Muslim boys’ intolerance for flamers is illuminated in Lawrence Wright’s popular history of Middle East terrorism, the Looming Tower. In 1995, Islamic extremists, with support from Osama bin Laden and Sudan, attempted to assassinate Egyptian president Honsi Mubarak. But the former friend of America survived and retaliated by kidnapping the primary plotters’ sons, gang-raping them, taking pictures of the gang-rape, and telling them if they didn’t become their spies and try to kill their own daddies then they would show their daddies the gang-rape pictures. The sons selected to snitch on their daddies since if their daddies were to see the pictures they would sentence their sons to the firing squad (SPOILER ALERT: thanks to Sudan, the daddies caught on that their sons were trying to have them killed and sentenced them to the firing squad anyways).
The Muslim boys’ rejection of homosexuals contrasts with America’s accelerated acceptance of them. As Chief Justice John Roberts told the gay people’s lawyer during all that DOMA bull crap, “As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case.” According to Judith, the gay rights types “are being instrumentalized in order to establish a specific cultural grounding.” In the Netherlands, Judith says immigration officials show people applying for citizenship pictures of kissing homosexuals. If they believe the action is acceptable then they can join the western European country because they’re conforming to the lauded components of “modernity” — a term that Judith translates as a set of norms that are implemented “in order to shore up particular religions and cultural preconditions that affect other sorts of exclusions.” Since Muslims boys are disgusted by the Allen Ginsbergs on earth, they’re left out of America and American-like countries (like the Netherlands), which is one of the fundamental reasons why they possess what Judith terms “ungrievable lives” — that is, existences that “already inhabit a lost and destroyed zone.” As Baby Marie-Antoinette noted in her controversial “Dear White Race” letter, lots of Middle Eastern subjects can be killed with little to no heed from the lamestream media; meanwhile, relatively few Americans can be killed (i.e. the dead Boston marathoners) and the lamestream media immediately assigns the affair an almost atrocity status. Judith says that some lives receive notice while others do not is because the ability to apprehend a life is “partially dependent on the life being produced according to norms that qualify it as a life.” Being the most visible hegemony on the planet allows America and America-like countries to construct these norms. Sayyid Qutb, the 20th-century Egyptian boy whose writings may have provided the philosophical foundation for Osama and others, describes those who abide by America norms as “a reckless, deluded heard that only knows lust and money.” In his scatological Unlimited Intimacy book, Tim Dean shows how none-gay lust is just as extreme and hardcore as gay lust. As for money, well, the DOMA court case came to be largely because a certain lesbian (Edith Windsor) didn’t want to pay more taxes. Yes, gays and un-gays both adhere equally to the lust/money American norms, and each are equally yucky.
But New York Times opinion boy Thomas L Friedman doesn’t describe American norms as yucky. He describes them as the tops. In a column published a couple of months after 9/11, Thomas L (a Jew, by the way) reprimands Islamic countries for not renouncing their culture and racing to join “the secular West, modernity, and pluralism.” By the conclusion of his condescending column, Thomas L tells Muslims that they need to see that their future lies in an “integrated, globalized world.” Judith, who read Thomas L’s article as well, interprets it as a suggestion that Islamic countries are “somehow in a childish state of cultural development and that the norm of adulthood is represented more adequately by critics such as himself.” A white, secular, gay-people-lover capitalist, Thomas L embodies the norms constructed by America, so his life is grievable, and he wants Muslims to see that if they want grievable lives too then they need to start complying with American norms.
One Muslim boy, Osama bin Laden, had no such intentions of integrating Thomas L’s norms into his world. On 23 August 1996, Osama formally declared war on Thomas L and the country he worships, telling them, “You are not unaware of the injustice, repression, and aggression that have befallen Muslims through the alliance of Jews, Christians, and their agents, so much so that Muslims blood has become the cheapest blood and their money and wealth are plundered by enemies.” Osama’s description of Islamic blood as “the cheapest blood” further fortifies Judith’s conclusion that Muslim subjects lead “ungrievable lives,” or, putting it another way, lives that have little to no value, resulting in their being extinguished with the same lack of ceremony as other things with little to no value (for example, most Thomas L type people wouldn’t make a big to-do over discarding a dirty teddy bear whose white stuffing is spraying all over the place… though I obviously do). While there are a lot of explanations for the Terrorist War, one of the most striking is provided by Judith, who posits that the tolerant and civilized traits affixed to America permit it “to bring notions of democracy to those who have not yet entered the secular terms of the liberal state.” If Muslims won’t start to value what Thomas L values on their own, then America and America-like countries will simply have to band together and force Muslims to see the splendidness of their norms (which aren’t splendid in any sense, but, of course, sordid in every sense).
The coercion carried out by America, America-like countries, and Thomas L types, was on decided display during the Abu Ghraib scandal. In Saddam’s former prison, the American guards raped Middle East prisoners, stacked them in pyramids, tied ropes to their boy parts, shoved batons up their tushies, affixed them to doggie leashes, rode them like donkeys, and went weewee on them. The sundry sexual assaults are America’s way of assimilating Muslims into their culture. What is mortifying to Muslims are marvelous to America and America-like subjects. As Michele Focault pointed out in his first history of sex, Western culture is constantly constructing ways to discuss, classify, and analyze sex and bodies. Lavishing attention upon the flesh is fundamental to American and European culture, or, what Thomas L terms the “integrated, globalized world.” The boy who wanted nothing to do with such a system, Sayyid Qutb, said, “Islam is the declaration of the freedom of man from servitude to other men.” Obviously, America and America-like countries are the antithesis of that. The power of Thomas L types derives from their devotion to their bodies. They take myriad photos of their bodies and post them on Instagram and Facebook; in less than 140 characters, they communicate the configuration of their bodies on Twitter. The top priority for Thomas L types is rendering their bodies as explicitly as possible. Muslim’s sour stance toward sex and flesh makes them, in Judith’s term, “pre-modern.” That terrorist countries condemn bodily behavior that causes Americans to jump for joy suggests that Islamic culture is backwards, archaic, underdeveloped, immature, repressed, and so on. Really, though, Muslims care about infinitely more sublime things than orgasms or whether they might be 2.48 percent bisexual. But for the perverts of Western culture it’s impossible to consider the possibility that there’s more important things than sex and human flesh.
The single-minded nature of Western subjects, as well their firm belief that sex is the basis for cultural development, is seen in Lynndie England. Standing behind a naked pile of Middle East prisoners, the American army girl-boy (along with another American army boy) flashes the camera a thumbs up. She is happy; she is fulfilling her duty in that that she’s exposing Muslims to what Americans expose themselves to (in bars, at clubs, on the internet, and in lots of other places) everyday. Lynndie and her friend are bringing “the secular West, modernity, and pluralism” to the Middle East just like they’re supposed to. At Guantanamo Bay, the sexual predominance of Americans was exhibited further. After witnessing officials brainstorm ways in which they could subject prisoners to enhanced interrogation, a girl lawyer, Diane Beaver, remarked, “You could almost see their dicks getting hard as they got new ideas.” When another girl, Susan Sontag, described the Abu Grahib photos as pictures of “us,” she wasn’t eliciting pity for Americans who felt forlorn for what their country did, but she was revealing how Americans share the norms (sex, flesh, and pornography) that made the photographs possible in the first place.
While America and its like-minded countries strive to be graphic, conspicuous, and utterly indiscreet, the terrorists take to being hidden, veiled, and out of sight. A French boy named Baudrillard describes terrorism as an “infiltration,” “an internal convulsion,” “a rumor,” “viral and elusive,” and something that “haunts the entire planet.” The ungrievable life of a terrorist (or a Middle Eastern subject) is also an invisible one. The ghostly composition of their terrorists is showcased in the movie Restrepo, a documentary about a bunch of army boys fighting terrorists in a particular violent region of Afghanistan. Baby Idi, who watch and composed a review of Restrepo, noticed:
The army boys talk a lot. When one of their fellow army boys is killed they discuss how sad it is and how it turns their tummies into uncomfortable knots. They also discuss how bad they feel when they kill terrorists who aren’t terrorists but boys and girls. The terrorists themselves don’t talk at all. In fact, Baby Idi never actually saw one terrorist. The movie shows lots of American boys shooting, but it never shows who the American army boys are shooting at.
The absence of any actual embodied terrorists reveals the gap between them and grievable Thomas L types. While the American army boys speak at length, the terrorists are utterly silent. The mute, bodiless constitution of terrorists opposes the constantly communicative, flesh-flaunting foundation of Americans. This contrast came about again in May when Community Organizer Obama gave a speech in which he discussed how vexed it made him when he had to fire missiles into Middle East countries. As Obama talked and talked, the targets of the drones remained quiet and out of sight. Once more, the American bodies are glaring and the terrorists ones are unable to be seen.
Obama and Bush, the first two USA presidents of the Terrorist War, have each labeled the enemy “evil.” The countries and subjects have been assigned that tag due to their hatred of ”the secular West, modernity and pluralism.” But what Thomas L and his cohorts actually mean is that Muslim subjects can be imposed upon and, if need be, eradicated since they don’t embrace the carnal and corporeal norms of American and America-like countries. In the Terrorist War, the “good” side is “good” because of their worship of sex, flesh, and porn while the “evil” side is “evil” due to their rejection of sex, flesh, and porn. To be “good” is to be a pervert, and that is one of the biggest reasons why America and America-like countries are chowderheads.