October 17, 2001
Konrad Switters

Words are very important. And so is the context in which words are used - not just in terms of sentence structure, but also in terms of the time and place of their use. Very rarely does a single word, by itself, invoke all the passions of the human mind; and even when it does, it is almost always the historical context of such a word which gives it the power and authority to command all the auspices of human thought. Words like Crusade, Slavery, and Holocaust, are examples of such words. Each a small collection of letters which becomes audible with speech, and each which conjures within the human soul immediate emotions, proportional to a person's understanding of the story and the history [if such a distinction is even necessary] behind each of them.

Words should not be taken lightly. They make ideas communicable, in every sense of that word. And in giving ideas flight, they have the power to transform opinions as a result of conversation and debate. It is important to note the obvious: that there is always more than one opinion on any topic. And herein lies the beauty and the magnificence of humanity: each mind in each body functions independently of each of the others, and every single mind is capable of complex thought. That inherent within this reality is the fact that disagreement leads to dissension of opinion, and ultimately to war, hate, and corruption, does not render the different words which voice different opinions any less remarkable; but it does illuminate the limits of words: they are very often not heard and not understood, and they can be just as easily used to comfort and compliment as they can be to brainwash and control.

The acts of Terrorism on the United States of America were, and continue to be, horrible crimes; crimes so horrible and so unimaginable that even words don't adequately describe them. And yet it is with words that this event will, and must, be scrutinized. In this world of words and opinions, the battle is for the human mind. It is not the leader with the most guns and the most planes who reigns supreme, but the leader who captures the imagination of the human mind. The human intellect can be quickly caught with marketing and advertising and factitious rhetoric, but to be fully engaged and transformed, it must be wooed and beckoned with the beauty of words and ideas.

If the power of words were truly understood, and if the magnificence of the human mind were truly revered in our society, the word "evil" would not be used in the context of a war on terrorism. And most certainly, the President of the United States of America would not use the word "evil" during the course of a speech broadcast live to the entire Nation. But in fact, this is exactly what happened on October 11, 2001. President George W. Bush used the word "evil" thirteen (13) times during the course of his speech and question-answer session, with three of his invocations of the word "evil" used in the context of the word, "evildoer." Although the use of force against "Terrorists and the Nations which harbor them" is arguably justified, this argument is avoided, in favor of simple noxious articulations, which will only temporarily elicit the support of American citizens. Rhetoric has been substituted for education.

According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, evil is defined as, "Morally bad or wrong; wicked," and terrorism is defined as, "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons." The definition of terrorism is almost benign when compared to the righteous indignation which George Bush has been imbued it with when he combined it with the "evil act" [September 11] committed by the "evil one[s]" [Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda].

The American public finds the rhetoric of the Taliban and Osama bin Laden almost completely incomprehensible. The invocation of the power of Allah, to claim a Jihad [holy war] against innocent civilians is beyond anything Americans are capable of reasoning with; these words do not resonate with Americans, they do not stir their sense of values. And yet a word like "evildoer" is issued to placate their senses, as it heightens the fear [and thus the resolve to do something about it] already accorded to the idea of terrorism and its "evil" pretense. According to The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, the word evildoer means, "A person who sins without repenting." In the battle for the human mind, in this country and abroad, the application of a word which applies to a religious dictum which requires repenting for sins, is not the kind of rhetoric which should be applied to a terrorist organization [and the individuals involved] which invokes portions of the Koran to explain that martyrdom, through an act of self-destruction, is a glorious end to this Earthly life.

With his redundant and misguided use of this inflammatory rhetoric [which represents nothing more than an inane marketing campaign for the beautiful minds of the American public] the President of the United States has taken these worthy citizens as nothing more than bodies to be won over in a campaign to sell politics. His arguments erroneously renders the military actions currently taking place in Afghanistan, as morally superior to terrorism [good versus evil], rather than correctly, as what should be characterized as a monumental and heroic effort by the civilized world to combat a religious fanaticism which threatens freedom of expression in all human endeavors.

There are many words to describe the nature of Terrorists and of Terrorism, and "evil" or "evildoers" should not be among them. In a democratic society which values the necessity of a legal system in which guilt must be determined through careful presentation of factual evidence, and where the separation of church and state serves as a blueprint for tolerance and values, there is no room for a leader who feigns integrity by invoking his own kind of religious ardency. And in a healthy and economically rich society where education and "family values" serve as paradigms of enlightenment, the political characterization of religious fervor, as misguided as it may be, as inherently "evil" should be balked at and rebuked.