define "terrorist"...
By 1voxpopuli on Mar 8, 2010 | In white house, we the people, the supreme court, news
a couple of weeks ago, on february 19, after joseph stack had flown his plane into a federal government building, i asked, "have you noticed anything missing...?"
http://morphinedreams.com/blog7.php/2010/02/19/have-you-noticed-anything-missing
i got sidetracked by the global warming thing, but i guess i like to think that things happen for a reason...call me a "conspiracy theorist" just because i have a brain that can reason and i can do a bit of math, if you want, but facts are facts and no amount of name-calling changes that...
http://abcnews.go.com/International/climate-change-forecasts-trusted/story?id=9685251
anyway...back to joseph stack...as usual, i'll take the long way around and apologize in advance...
everyone who is retirement age or younger has never known a world without government(s) having the capability to annihilate the entire species, if not the entire planet...so i will pan back a bit...
see politics as a line...on the far left are the dystopian societies described in literature and music, e.g., george orwell's "1984" or "2112" (based on ayn rand's "anthem") by the canadian trio, rush, etc...
on the far right is humanitarian utopia...i would cite jacque fresco's "venus project", as an example...
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
these may not be at the very end of each line, but are definitely close, as they are extreme examples of their respective points-of-view...
in this nation, we find ourselves somewhere in between, heading more and more toward the left over the past century...not only in politics, but economically, as well...throughout the world, bigger and bigger governments along with increasingly more powerful central banking systems have either assisted, or hindered, depending on your personal point-of-view, technological advancement unimagined only a couple of centuries ago, except by an outcast few who had the gift for that sort of vision...
as for how politics and economics hinder advancement, i would offer nikola tesla, j.p. morgan, and wardenclyffe as a quick example...
"If anyone can draw on the power, where do we put the meter?"
http://www.teslasociety.com/biography.htm
there's no doubt that humanity has historically been led, or pushed, by governments across the globe further and further left, toward the big government end of the scale, whether the kingdoms and empires of old or contemporary socialist/communist governments...
however, there have also been notable attempts to move things to the right...our government was founded on individual rights and freedoms, and showed it very boldly in some instances, e.g., andrew jackson's opposition to a central bank...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/andrewjackson/
the united states constitution and the magna carta (upon which the vision of our nation was based) were dramatic steps to the right, based on natural law...
"When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws."
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/magna_carta/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
so, losing our rights and freedoms, as we are, at a breakneck pace, the question isn't whether or not we're headed away from that...
to show just how far out of whack this has become, i'll point out that you may not be able to buy a footlong hot dog for much longer...it's apparently become too much trouble for parents to take the time to cut up hot dogs for their offspring...and too much trouble to consult a pediatrician, or visit a library to get a book written by pediatricians, or even simply click a mouse a few times to visit a website run by pediatricians, for practical advice, if they are either lacking in parental skills or common sense...
http://www.canada.com/health/Pediatricians+call+hotdogs+redesigned/2602021/story.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/22/children.choking/?hpt=C1
therein lies part of the problem...it has somehow become too much "trouble" for people to take care of themselves...just trust the government to do everything...which is allowing the governments of the world to slither further to the left with each instance...
therefore, the question is this...is this constant drift and occasional push to the left for our benefit...?
george orwell's "1984" had some chilling, and amazingly accurate, assessments of what governments can do, if left unchecked...sadly, we can see a lot of his dystopian vision in our reality today...it's less of a futuristic, fictional novel than it is a mirror, in many instances...and although i would think few people would fantasize about living in a world like that, the majority seem oblivious to what's currently going on around them, and how close to orwell's nightmare we actually are...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35728620/ns/world_news-world_environment/
why...?
advertising and sales...
they sell us "security"...it costs us our freedoms and rights...and people are so willing to have faith, lest they seem somehow unpatriotic or part of some "conspiracy theory", or else are completely traumatized into thinking that government restricting our freedom is the only way to be safe, that this constant left-leaning is being, and has been for a long time, carried out without so much as a gasp or a whimper...
at least, until lately...thankfully, the economic landscape seems to have awakened increasing numbers of us...
that being said, let me get back to the task at hand...trying to define "terrorist"...
the founding fathers...george washington...thomas jefferson...paul revere...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio
i'm not sure who these people really are in this video, but the speaker and some in the audience (whom the person posting this video claims are a representative from fema and oklahoma police officers) seem to believe that our founding fathers were the first terrorists on our soil...
let's hope that this doesn't become the federal government's official position...if it indeed isn't already...
if this is an official viewpoint, then a terrorist is anyone who rebels from tyranny...essentially, any movement to the right...
therefore, as orwell indicates, if they want 2+2 to equal 5, it would be very difficult to reverse field and get moving back to the right again...after even a single generation, who would remember that it once equaled 4...and only those with the vision to see that as oppressive would even care...just as each generation, for the past century, in our history, has let things slide for comfort and "security", and each subsequent generation has never known things to be any different...just as there are fewer and fewer people alive that can recall a time and a world that wasn't nuclear...
in fairness, this entire conversation could have been a "no-no" that was being captured in this video, or it could have even been staged...i wasn't there, and i don't know for certain where the federal government stands on things, only what they tell us...so, i'm going to assume this is not the "official" opinion of our federal government...
starting from here then, let me share what i've found on the definition of "terrorist" in recent history, via the media...
the irish republican army are considered "terrorists" in the united kingdom...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8538895.stm
but, then again...the following associated press article steers clear of all of the terror-related words, using instead, "dissidents"...it also infers that the "official" stand of the united states government regarding the ira is the same...
"In Washington, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the IRA dissidents' latest bid to undermine Northern Ireland's Catholic-Protestant government..."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_NIRELAND_CAR_BOMB?SITE=KTVB&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
dissidents practice "dissent"...
as a noun, merriam-webster defines "dissent" as a "difference of opinion...as...religious nonconformity...a justice's nonconcurrence with a decision of the majority —called also dissenting opinion...political opposition to a government or its policies"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dissent
somehow, those whom i was taught in school were "terrorists", those whom the bbc also recently reported to be "terrorists", do no longer necessarily "officially" fall into that category...our government seems suddenly reluctant to use the "t" word...
"dissident" is an equally scary term, however...just throwing this out there for consideration...any federal court judge who has an opinion other than the majority is also a "dissident"...
nevertheless, it is obvious that there has been a shift in the definition of "terrorist"...
the american media were seemingly empathetic in their treatment of joseph stack...
(again, for convenience, the links are found here)...
http://morphinedreams.com/blog7.php/2010/02/19/have-you-noticed-anything-missing
i did not read every single word from every single article, but as far as i could tell, there was no official mention of "terrorist" from any of the nation's major news media...only from bloggers giving their opinions...
according to fox news, reporters were told by republican congressman from texas, michael mccaul, that the incident was "not tied to overseas terror organizations..."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586581,00.html
"overseas" seems to be the optimum word there...and the council on american-islamic relations doesn't seem to be too thrilled about it...
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26251&&name=n&&currPage=1
http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26269&&name=n&&currPage=1&&Active=1
here's the view from "overseas"...iran...
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=119029§ionid=3510203
interesting to note the last paragraph of that article states, "US officials called it a deliberate assault on a US government institution, stressing there were no apparent connections to international terrorism, although White House spokesman Robert Gibbs did not rule out that it could still be considered an act of domestic terrorism."
there can't be any question that the major media in our nation are reporting news the way the federal government wants them to report it...
which makes this associated press report all the more curious...the opening paragraph from the published msnbc article reads...
"Flames were still shooting from the building when the suicide pilot who crashed his plane into the IRS office in Austin was being hailed in some corners as a hero who struck a courageous blow against the tyranny of the U.S. tax code." (emphasis mine)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35519143/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
evidently, and presumably due to the recent and ongoing economic turmoil, this attack is viewed differently by us, the citizens of our nation, collectively, than prior incidents...
major nidal malik hasan wasn't treated so kindly by the media...time magazine depicted a black banner with the word "terrorist?" across his face on its cover...
http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,20091123,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/03/06/martel.obama.terror.trial/?hpt=T2
umar farouk abdulmutallab didn't even detonate a bomb successfully...and he is facing the possibility of being tried in a military court, referred to as a "terrorism suspect" in this reuters article...(the article also states that the "official" terminology, under proposed legislation, is "suspected unprivileged enemy belligerents")...
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62358O20100304
even though it was pure luck, not protection sold to us by our government, that prevented tragedy, the title of this report deals with what cnn called the "foiled terror attack"...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/28/airline.terror.attempt/index.html
going back a bit to view one more instance, as far as i can tell, things are status quo for timothy mcveigh and terry nichols...the oklahoma city bombing is still considered an act of terrorism...
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/735994/Oklahoma-City-bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighindictment.html
time to try and sort this out...
having ties from anywhere "overseas" is bad...unless those ties are with the irish republican army, in which case the suspect could be, not a "terrorist", but a "dissident"...
oh, thailand is okay, too...they're known, not as "terrorists", but "anti-government protesters" or "anti-government demonstrators" in the following article, although they, too, set off bombs (one at the "government house"...see map) and shut down the nation's two largest airports...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28007819
joseph stack, apparently, had no such ties...
it's not anglo vs. whatever...timothy mcveigh and terry nichols are proof that joseph stack isn't being called "terrorist" because of heritage...
it's not that you have to kill someone..."terrorist" umar farouk abdulmutallab didn't...joseph stack, the man being hailed as "hero" by some, as reported by major news agencies, did...
it's not about flying planes into buildings, either...the 9/11 hijackers ("terrorists") and joseph stack ("pilot") did just that...
and it's not that the buildings are federal government property...mcveigh and nichols bombed a federal building...joseph stack flew a plane into one...even the pentagon shooter, john patrick bedell, isn't "officially" recognized as a "terrorist"...
"pentagon, police, and the fbi are convinced tonight that bedell acted alone and that there's no indication that his actions here were an act of terrorism..."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=35732570�
i only see three consistent threads here...
one...if, on our soil, someone or some group (other than a government agency) killed a lot of people, whether on government or secular property, whether they were anglo or otherwise, whether they were american or otherwise, no matter their religious beliefs, they were called "terrorists"...
two...all of these people i have mentioned, whether the "t" word is used in connection with them or not, were violently venting anger they harbored toward a federal government, whether ours or another...
three...our government, along with every government around the globe, u.k., thailand, india, etc., are powerless to prevent it, whatever "it" is...whether any person involved is called "terrorist", or "dissident", or "anti-government protester", or "suspected unprivileged enemy belligerent", or "angry pilot", or "bi-polar conspiracy theorist", makes no difference...without luck, all governments fail to prevent such atrocities...no matter how many rights and freedoms they suspend while claiming that we are safer because of it...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101731.html
umar farouk abdulmutallab is a perfect example...a man, who does not live in the united states, and is not an american citizen, tells "counter-terrorism" officials about his own son, and the possibility of his connection with future terrorism on american soil...even when they have information, the federal government does nothing and/or simply can't prevent an attack...
again, referring to the cnn report...
"AbdulMutallab, a Nigerian who had a multiple-entry visa to the United States, had been added to a watch list of 550,000 potential terrorist threats after the information provided by his father was forwarded to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, a senior administration official said...the info on him was not deemed specific enough to pull his visa or put him on a no-fly list..."
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/28/airline.terror.attempt/index.html
one thing is certain...if these attacks are ever going to cease, it's not going to be due to further movement to the left...right or wrong, these attacks aren't viewed by the perpetrators as aggression, but rather, as retaliation for oppressive government behavior...whether it's real or perceived isn't the point...either way, it's getting worse...
trying to eradicate every single person that the united states government considers to be a "terrorist" will not solve the problem...these people are trying to get the federal government out of situations that they see as harmful to people, themselves and/or those around them, and our federal government's continuing encroachment into their back yards will only serve to create additional anger...
take the flags and the religions away, and the fight boils down to this...these people, individually or in groups, believe violently pushing back against leftward momentum is necessary because it has made their lives increasingly miserable and they desperately want it to stop...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34737634/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34904203/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35515880/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=119903
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35487219/ns/politics-white_house
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=120257§ionid=3510203
yet governments push back harder against dissension by further restricting natural law, thus becoming bigger and more powerful in the name of "security"...a vicious catch 22...
http://morphinedreams.com/blog7.php/2010/02/03/i-have-a-few-questions
the way to stem the tide isn't with attacks on government, it's by modifying government...we have a constitution in this nation that enables us to do that...even in the simplest matters, a small step to the right is going to alleviate stress somewhere...the more important the matter, the larger the group of people for whom it alleviates stress...
if things continue as they have been, at some point, it will come to a head...
what if we were to experience a nuclear attack on our soil...?
that's not even necessarily the worst-case scenario...but vivid enough to make the point...
http://morphinedreams.com/blog5.php/2008/10/19/survival-guide-1
http://www.americanpreppersnetwork.com/
http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/an_lds_guide_to_beginning_food_storage
the extremes of that political line, as i see it, are tyranny, on the left, and pure anarcho-syndicalism, on the right...
tyranny might be summed up in these words...
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
http://www.ford.utexas.edu/grf/quotes.asp
anarcho-syndicalism...to me, in its purest form, it means "no government, no economy" with a volunteer workforce and natural law maintaining individual freedoms and rights for all...complete relief from any form of tyranny...
anarchy...but not the anarchy that the media sells you on the nightly news...rather, a move to the right as people become so comfortable with libertarianism that they realize government isn't even necessary...
no more wars over real or perceived political/religious/economic injustices, border disputes between nations, etc...
anarchy, as described with these words...
"I heartily accept the motto, That government is best which governs least; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe, That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
--"civil disobedience" by henry david thoreau
