Missiles and attacks do not tolerate the language of beautification

Former Speaker of the Arab Parliament, Ali Al-Daqbas, said at the end of one of his televised appearances: “Curse the father of Iran, and curse the father of whoever allies with Iran.” The anchor then interrupted him, saying, “Let things not go this far!”

Have the boundaries that the Iranian terrorist regime has not crossed remained intact? Has the killing and assault on innocent civilians and military personnel, the targeting of infrastructure, and the terrorizing of the secure left any room to speak of a “linguistic ceiling” or “disciplined discourse”?

Just as there is the language of protocol, measured phrases, and “polite” speech that is supposed to respect the rules of media discourse, there is also a reality that cannot be beautified. Missiles, attacks, and the direct targeting, day and night, of a secure country are ultimately a filthy discourse and a degraded language!

The real problem is not the sharpness of the word, but the gap in feeling between a burning reality and a discourse intended to remain cold. The citizen who sees his country targeted and its assets threatened will not speak in flashy words or the language of official statements, but in the language of sincere emotion, however harsh it may be.

Therefore, attempts to beautify anger or forcibly tame it may sometimes appear as a detachment from reality, rather than a commitment to professionalism.

We do not call for chaos in discourse, nor for the abandonment of all controls, but at the same time, we cannot ask a person who sees his homeland touched by killing, fire, and destruction to express himself as if nothing had happened.

There are moments when “polite” words are insufficient, because the pain in them is greater than all dictionaries.

All indignation against the Iranian regime, and against every individual who leans his heart toward the Iranian regime at the expense of his own country, whether openly or secretly.