It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The media spin about domestic terrorism

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 01:04 PM
link   
It's starting.
From Yahoo News:

WASHINGTON – An elderly man enters a crowded museum carrying a rifle and begins shooting. A young man in Arkansas pulls the trigger outside a military recruiting office. Another man opens fire in a Kansas church.

Three chilling, unconnected slayings in less than two weeks. One gunman was a white supremacist, one a militant Muslim, one a fervent foe of abortion.

Each suspect had a history that suggested trouble. Each apparently was driven to act by beliefs considered by some as extreme. Each shooter fits the description of a "lone wolf" terrorist, a killer whose attack, authorities say, is harder to . off than if planned by a trained terrorist network.

"It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door, living in the basement of his mother's place, on the Internet just building himself up with hate, building himself up to a boiling point and finally using what he's learned," said John Perren, . of the counterterrorism branch at the FBI's Washington field office.

Perren described the difficulty of hunting a lone wolf suspect in an interview with the Associated Press just two days before white supremacist James von Brunn allegedly shot and killed a guard at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.

"The lone wolf is what concerns the Washington field office, what concerns the FBI the most," he said.

There's more if you follow the link.

I understand the idea behind this, completely. What bothers me, however, is how they're labeling it. Fifteen years ago these people wouldn't have been grouped together under the term terrorist, they would have been called murderers, plain and simple.
It seems like more and more things are being linked to terrorism thus making the word's meaning more and more ambiguous. If you've ever read Orwell then you know what I'm talking about; in fact Orwell talked about this process extensively in his essay "Politics and the English Language"
Let me quote some things:

Many political words are similarly abused.
The word FASCISM has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies
"something not desirable." The words DEMOCRACY, SOCIALISM, FREEDOM,
PATRIOTIC, REALISTIC, JUSTICE, have each of them several different
meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a
word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the
attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally
felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it:
consequently the defenders of every kind of régime claim that it is a
democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it
were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a
consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own
private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something
quite different. Statements like MARSHAL PÉTAIN WAS A TRUE PATRIOT, THE
SOVIET PRESS IS THE FREEST IN THE WORLD, THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS OPPOSED
TO PERSECUTION, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other
words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly,
are: CLASS, TOTALITARIAN, SCIENCE, PROGRESSIVE, REACTIONARY BOURGEOIS,
EQUALITY.


This new-ish wave of labeling all violent acts as terrorism seems, to me at least, to be the exact thing Orwell was talking about in the paragraph above.
This type of language was also used in the proposed HR 1955 "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" bill a couple years ago.

This is getting too real for me everyone.

 


Replaced quote tags with 'ex' tags for external text

[edit on 13/6/09 by masqua]




posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Newspeak. 1984 is behind schedule, but on its way, nonetheless.

Yes, they are characterizing many crimes as "terrorism." Next, we'll see rapists called terrorists. Wife (or husband) beaters called terrorists. And so on.

And if you support the Constitution, no matter WHAT you do, you're a terrorist.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Or, if you're a patriot, you'd better be all for the punishment of these terrorist types. You'll be neglecting your civic duty if you oppose the expidiated processing of these guys.

God bless America



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Headshot
 


Nice thread. I saw a quote from Obama on ATS and other places last week, somewhere along the lines of:

"I understand that some may question or justify the events of 911."

So basically he's equating those that question to those that justify, or broadly speeking, those that sympathise with terrorism and those that question our goverment are one and the same.

It's all getting to the point where the lines in the sand are being kicked and trampled on, soon any criminal will just be a terrorist, plain and simple.



new topics

top topics
 
3

log in

join