Dangerous rhetoric against Iran called "mother of all bombs"

A media activist wrote: Bombing is no longer bombing; It is a response to a great threat. And when they call the weapon the mother of bombs, it is as if the language itself has come to make it easier for the conscience.

Sahand Iranmehr wrote in his Telegram channel: First, they call her the mother of bombs. Her name is such that in the mind she is like a mother bomb with the same motherly seal and a number of desirable chicks, and this kind mother, by generously donating her explosive substances, bestows her natal property on the earth and time.

One of those obligatory people wrote on Twitter that it is a bomb for "cleansing". Then, the same name appears in the middle of the news, among the words of politicians, next to television analysis; It spins and spins so much that no one asks anymore: Why should something like this be poured on a country?

These days, the talk is about Trump's possible use of MOAB against Iran. It is not yet known whether the command to use it has been issued, but the threat itself, the fact that such a thing is carried out so easily, is something to think about. It seems to be talking about moving some tanks or changing a commander. A big bomb, a big target, a military decision; all

A few days ago, Rubio said in Athens about Greece and ancient Iran; Since the time when Xerxes army went to Greece and Athens stood against him. The place of the speech was not chosen randomly; At the foot of the Acropolis, where its stones still buy credit for today's politician. They brought history to the middle, but not all history; You messed up the part that was useful today, and this time too, just like the case of the mother bomb, except for the American side, who said it frankly, there were those who said it had nothing to do with Iran.

Now, what if we put today's Iran in the place of Achaemenid Iran and put America as the heir of ancient Athens? What if we take out only one war out of a thousand years of history and say, look, this enemy is the same enemy; Did he just change his clothes? Then we are no longer facing people who live in a country with today's problems and troubles; We are dealing with a historical threat that seems to have to be removed once and for all.

And this is where the story reaches the bomb. First, they place the enemy in a picture; An enemy that is not only at war with your interests, but with your civilization, with your past and with your future. Then, whatever you do with him, he will gradually take the form of defense. Bombing is no longer bombing; It is a response to a great threat. And when they call the weapon the mother of bombs, it is as if the language itself has come to make it easier for the conscience.

It is strange; As the instrument of killing gets bigger, the language of its description gets smaller. They say about the power of the explosion, about the depth of the facilities, about the possibility of penetrating the target, about the necessity of the operation. Everything is there except the talk of land and people.

Language sometimes paves the way for something that hasn't been done yet. When you hear a threat many times, your ears get used to it; What was terrifying on the first day, becomes one of the options on the 10th day, and on the 20th day, it may become a decision that seems to have had no other choice, like those days when Tehran was bombed, and some people cheered on their rooftops, and some still insist that they had nothing to do with "the people".

My generation is a generation that has seen "we get used to it" many times, what harm has been done to arguing for "obvious things", whether it was when you had to prove to one side that you were honest with your people or when you had to prove that this fire does not make a difference between a fire and a fire for your entire country, and this is what should worry us more than the name of a bomb, that a day will come when we talk about the destruction of a country as if we have We are talking about a technical operation; The day when the name of a weapon becomes more important than the land it may collapse under.

The bomb hasn't dropped yet. But the language has sometimes done its job before the bomb; He has created the enemy, explained the crime, destruction and violence and removed the question, and this is what they are doing with Iran, with yesterday's tomahawk, tomorrow's mother bomb, and maybe the day after tomorrow's "father bomb". These are their methods, gradual habituation even in the names they choose, unless they named the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th as "Little Boy" and the August 9th bomb in Nagasaki as "Man". Fat Man?

Leaving aside the language game, what happens on earth has nothing to do with the mother, neither the son nor the fat man, it is a crime that has been purified by a lot of repetition and play of words before, it is not wrong as Shahabuddin Suhravardi used to say:

"Subject to wordplay because in the Day of Resurrection, out of every thousand people, maybe except for one person, the rest will be killed!"