"...Except When We Do It."

in #anarchy8 years ago (edited)

It is completely impossible to precisely define the word “terrorism” in a way that doesn’t include what every “government” on the planet does … unless you include in the definition something that basically amounts to, “but it doesn’t count as terrorism when government does it.” For example, Section 2656f of Title 22 of the United States Code defines “terrorism” to mean “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.” Did you notice the key word? Here it is: “subnational.”

Damn near everything “government” does is “politically motivated violence,” including violence “against noncombatant targets.” Tax laws? Drug laws? Gun laws? In fact, pretty much all man-made “laws” are that. That’s why the political parasites have to toss in the word “subnational,” in order to exclude themselves. They are basically saying, “Hey, when we wear the label ‘government,’ and then violently control the peasants for political ends, that doesn’t count, because we’re doing it on the national level! So it’s okay!

Interestingly, this definition found in federal law basically makes all state and local “governments” guilty of terrorism. (They are, after all, “subnational” groups.) The way the parasites usually get around this is to use words like “lawful” somewhere in the definition. Of course, when they say “lawful,” that just means, “we decided it was okay,” and when they say “contrary to the laws” of the country or state, that just means “we didn’t say it was okay."

For example, 28 CFR § 0.85 defines "terrorism" to mean “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” Once again, if not for that word “unlawful” in there, that would be a perfect description of damn near everything that every “government” does. Does anyone want to pretend, for example, that the IRS does not use “force and violence” in order to “intimidate” the civilian population into compliance with the federal extortion racket?

(Ironically, those who capitulate to the IRS’ terroristic demands, even just out of self-preservation, are then funding a terrorist organization... which is a crime (18 USC § 2339A). Oh, I forgot. It’s not “terrorism” when the gang calls itself “government,” and calls its victim base a "nation.")

But wait. So far I’ve only talked about how the U.S. “government” is the biggest domestic terrorist organization around. But even that is dwarfed by the evil that that gang perpetrates overseas, via international terrorism. After all, so far they don’t openly murder tens of thousands of civilians here in the U.S. They save that for other countries. And in that case, even their BS definitions don’t save them from obviously fitting within any sane definition of “terrorism,” because what U.S. troops do in other countries is in violation of the “laws” of those countries, and would be in violation of U.S. “law” if done here. That makes the U.S. military, without a doubt, the biggest and most deadly international terrorism organization in the world.

Remember all this the next time you hear some bloated political windbag telling you how you should be scared of terrorism. “They hate us for our freedoms!” Oddly, that is completely true, but only true about the terrorists headquartered in DC. Do you see any other gang trying so hard to deprive you of freedom? I don’t. The only terrorist organization Americans really need to fear is the one whose gang symbol is the American flag.

Sort:  

Terrorism is in the eye of the flag-holder.

Speaking of flags and terrorism, my rectangle made of fabric with colors and a pattern on it is better than yours and if you disagree or even worse, think that the use of such objects is nonsensical or irrational I'll use violence to convince you otherwise.

I should re-title my article from today to "Why are women attracted to terrorists?"

This is, in so many words, why I didn't re-enlist after making the monumentally immoral decision to enlist in the US Army in the first place. Once you realize what the government really is - just a group of men and women who tell other people to do what they say or else - wearing a uniform and agreeing to do what they say to people halfway around the world is the worst thing you could do. I'd even go so far as to say soldiers are more morally culpable than the psychopaths in charge; without the trigger-pullers, after all, what power do they really have?

you should be in the senate--better yet a global leader with more powerful connections than those that rule right now

Oh, my. As someone who has followed Larken's work for years now, this made me guffaw. :)

Ew. No. I don't want to BECOME a parasitical terrorist. I want to put them ALL out of business.

i certainly did not mean that shame on you for thinking that--we need good
influencers in those roles where there are none!

Re-steemed...as if my followers aren't following YOU already. LMAO

I would vote for this post ten times if I could. You sum it up really well in your first few sentences:

It is completely impossible to precisely define the word “terrorism” in a way that doesn’t include what every “government” on the planet does … unless you include in the definition something that basically amounts to, “but it doesn’t count as terrorism when government does it.

This is so true and then the later definition:

For example, 28 CFR § 0.85 defines "terrorism" to mean “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Just emphasises it further. What is the lawful use of violence? It is whatever the government decides it wants to call lawful.

Sadly the biggest creator of terrorism in the world is the continued imperial style meddling of our own western governments in the affairs of other nations.

Add to that the regular murdering of large numbers of people extra judicially using drones and the like and it isn't surprising that people come back looking for revenge.

If we are supposed to be the good guys that stand for the rule of law then we have a strange way of showing it by murdering people without even a trial. Even if you accepted that what of all the other innocent people that also get killed as a result.

Thousands of civilians seem to be killed every year in this way - if it was a member of my family that ended up as collateral damage I'm not sure I would placated by being told that it was an accident and they weren't the intended target. It's the same as terrorists calling their victims "martyrs" - it may placate their conscience but it doesn't help the person who is dead.

Violence always leads to more violence. The way to fight and prevent terrorism is to do the hard things i.e. instead of raping and pillaging poor countries to enrich our own we need to engage in nation building and helping other nations.

Reducing injustices in the world would probably have an infinitely larger effect.

The problem is that is hard and expensive. Also the people in power actually don't necessarily want to eliminate things like terrorism because they have a perverse incentive to keep them going.

Firstly because it allows them to consolidate their power and make new laws due to the continuing fear of terrorism and secondly because it is good business for the military industrial complex.

"Terrorist" - Just a Word

Somehow I missed this essay when Larken published it two days back. Excellent, as usual. But it appears that whichever whales have been supporting these essays have stopped. $57? Come on.

The Brits have come up with the brilliant 'solution' of caging anyone who views 'extremist material' for 15 years - I hope they mean '...except when we do it'

Coin Marketplace

STEEM 0.19
TRX 0.14
JST 0.030
BTC 62625.86
ETH 3333.11
USDT 1.00
SBD 2.47