Home | About | Donate

Some Questions for the ‘Expert’ Who Accused Me of ‘Passive Terrorism’


Some Questions for the ‘Expert’ Who Accused Me of ‘Passive Terrorism’

Domenica Ghanem

Misogynists have spun the old trope that what women wear is somehow the cause of what men do time and time again. But thanks to the Air Force, Muslim women are now getting a disturbingly refreshing take on the subject.

We’re used to getting blamed for the violence of men when we wear too little. Now we can also take credit for the violence of men when we wear too much.


So the Air Force is intimidated by a hijab, but can't find internet porn to exercise its piece. Suddenly I feel much safer. /s


Very well said, Domenica Ghanem. I'm laughing and crying at the same time, reading your words. Hope we see more from you, and hope you carry on your personal life with anything like the wisdom you demonstrate in this article.


So what this expert in fact saying is that unless women give men sex whnever they wish it the men will become terrorists. Calling cloud cuckoo-land.

The extremism displayed in suggesting that wearing a hijab a form of "passive terroism" is a clear case of projection. The extremist that goes on the no fly list should be the "expert" that wrote that crap for the US Military.


Let us not pass over the concept of "passive terrorism" itself. What is that?

An old US State Department definition held that terrorism was the use of violence for political means. Usage suggests that there have been other, unspoken modifiers involved. So, for instance, government use of violence is not usually called terrorism because governments are regarded as lawful coercers. Conversely, to call an action to task as "state terrorism" might suggest illegitimacy on the part of the state or of states in general.

Now, it seems to be a commonplace of Western discourse that violence is legitimate if it is against terrorists, sort of like it used to be legitimate if it were against communists or Jews. To whatever extent that sort of rhetoric is allowed to stand, any expansion in the notion of "terrorist" means an increase in the range of people towards whom violence is considered legitimate.

Now, what do we understand from this term "passive terrorism"? The terrorist is a terrorist, of course. But this terrorist is passive: this terrorist does not wield the violence, only fail to prevent it. Of course, if any act of terrorism actually occurs, whatever we might hold that to mean, everyone fails to prevent it. By this trick the presumed legitimacy of violence is extended ad infinitum.

In practice, such accusations are only useful if a distinction can be made, but that is simply a matter of determining any prejudicial category, with no necessary relationship to any sort of causality. So, if I decide that "Muslims should stop terrorism," then that may be asserted, however absurdly, without any real check for a relationship between "Muslim" and "terrorist."

In this particular case, of course, the US wishes to legitimize the violence that it uses against women and children as well as against men.


Good god! That absolute nonsense that passes for "scholarship" in the US Military - really just paranoid rantings produced for no reason but the keep the War Machine Budget going up - is stunning.

The linked article below from 1997 - written by a Dr. Strangelove-esque Col Ralph Peters of the US Army War College in Carlisle, PA is chillingly prophetic - not because Col. Peters was clairvoyant - but simply becasue the US military made sure the predictions came true.

It's a classic. I encourage everyone to read it...



Excellent article by Ms. Ghanem. I particularly like her bringing in the attire of christian nuns which is very similar to hijab. I also want to point out that an Air Force is an exemplar of a terrorism practitioner. Ever since the use of aerial bombing became widespread in war, civilian deaths have outnumbered combatant deaths in very large ratios.

The use of air power against civilians is terrorism!. Hence the air forces of the world are terrorist organizations.



Also that bizarre rise of Dominionist Fundamentalism in the high ranks of the Air Force.


It is a scientific fact that women are the cause of everything bad that men do (actually, this is a branch of what is called "republican science", to distinguish it from that sloppy, empirically-based nonsense spouted by those who fancy that their Ph.D.'s and years of research entitle them to intellectual respect and their so-called titles of "scientists".). Nuns covering their heads are the cause of priests raping children. Jeez, just look at Helen of Troy and the mayhem she caused. If it weren't for Eva Braun and Clara Petacci whispering war in their fella's ears who knows if WWII would have ever happened. If James Inhofe was a bachelor and not married to a science-hating wife what progress we could have made on global warming. The list is necessarily endless, a list as long as the women behind all the evil men in history.

I really like republican science. It requires no intelligence and even less thinking.


Her example of Catholic nuns wearing much the same garb is very apt. Where is the outrage about nuns out in public in their traditional garb?


Don't want to push the issue, but the linked article is really worth reading. Don't worry, it is not spam...


Sorry ... I was unable to get page to load on Opera, Firefox, Sea Monkey or Edge.


Hey, does anyone remember? I read an article a long time ago, probably in Common Dreams, about the military had coined this term to describe these strange type of individuals, who actually sympathized with peoples in other lands (even people, gasp, who were of the enemy), not just of their own family and their own nation and their own kind? The article I believe was on how the military was to deal with this strange sociological malady that seemed to manifest itself for unknown reasons in the U.S.. It was sympats or symps or something like that. I can't recall the exact term. But I was just trying to track it down because this article just reminded me of it and thought others might find it interesting.


We didn't stop our senseless killing in Vietnam until after feminists started burning their bras.


(btw, the actual burning of bras is/was more or less a media myth.)


Odd... It loads immediately on my Firefox browser:

Try this copy of it on the informationclearingohouse website



I think the 'ad infinitum' is worth exploring too. Human beings are inherently fully integrated into a cosmic diversity from electrobiochemical magnetic movement of energy and particles rights up through cells and throughout organism. But the fluid integration of life, planet and cosmos, according to the domination ideological mindset, shalt not be considered as inherent because to do so would mean that DIVERSITY in all its manifestations would have to be recognized as something to be be treasured, respected and worked with in all aspects of life.
When this infinite nature of integrated life is intentionally severed and used in domination coercion, the inherent ad infinitum becomes thoroughly perverted into its inverse of grasping for some sort of narcissistic vanishing point. I think of the violence of 'disappearing' and military euphemisms like 'take out' for negation/death of those such a system fears or feels threatened by. In a paroxysm of paranoid mindless attempt to satisfy the natural impulse for integration it projects the ideological perversion outward, sucking everything in its focus to 'disappear' its inherent legitimacy.


Of course Ms. Ghanem makes good sense, except for the part about Catholic nuns. When they were all covered up in those penguin outfits, a lot of them were very violent, as I can testify from childhood bruisings in their schools. But in the 1960s when they began to wear normal clothes, they were some of the most impressive and dedicated women I met.

A head covering such as Ms. Ghanem wears to mosque wouldn't make anyone crazy, but those total,cover-up outfits imposed by ISIS and Taliban are the equivalent of putting women wear chains and cannit be excused as a harmless cultural practice. In fact, those outfits should definitely be banned in democraric societies.


Maybe there is a little of the straw man phenomenon here, but still are very good article about how much denial there is about the reasons for our own hawkish policies. One could ask do policy makers and followers really take such claims seriously. Who knows anymore. Anything useful in deflecting reality is fair game.