Psyops: Changing Associations of the Word "Terrorism" to Hide the Truth?

Who are the real terrorists? A great point made through a song:

the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Terrorism

violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands (insurrection and revolutionary terror)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary Terror
Watch the video, and tell me, what government is not, by definition, involved in terrorism? I think one of the psychological tricks constantly employed is switching the perceptions of word meanings. Terrorist was made specific but is now being broadened again to include all opposers of the status quo. But this can be undone by logical thought, which is much harder to manipulate than emotional and subconcious levels of thought. The song goes through some other history and flashes words on the screen. He also mentions the overthrow or attempted overthrow of various governments, including democratic governments in South America. Which reminds me of the switch that has been made between constitutional republic and democracy, but I'm sure its been discussed here before...
What do you think? Who are the real terrorists, by definition, in the world today?

remember after 9/11? you couldn't go 2 minuets without hearing the word "terrorist"...its been drilled into our skulls and anything criminal that happens was done by a "terrorist".

reply to post by dowhatyoufear3


Since then we've killed around 1 million Iraqis. Who are the terrorists again?

Your country has caused screams that never reached your earlobes, America inflicted a million ground zeros.

-Lowkey

A line that really stuck with me.

reply to post by time91


oh i don't disagree with you by any means....this lines pretty much sums it up for me

"it's like the definition didn't ever exist. i guess it's all just depending on who your nemesis is."

Things aren't one-dimensional.

To put it simply - the government isn't one uniform entity with a stated purpose. Quite the opposite - it doesn't have any clue what its purpose is (because most people don't know what its purpose is) and is about as coherent as placing a middle school cafeteria in an echo-chamber.

You can apply terrorist labels to just about anybody. The fact of the matter is that foreign governments will support various militant groups that will plot to kill you because of your nationality. It's the real world, get over it.

Now - one of the purposes of our government was (and implicitly still is) to provide for the common defense. What good is an institution providing for the common defense if they don't do something about the countries and groups that plan to harm the population of its member nations?

Sure - it's a bit of a double-standard - but nothing is preventing them from peacefully co-existing. We (the states) are mutually bound to defend each other from foreign and domestic threats. It translates that other nations/groups should either cease being a threat, or apply for membership. You don't have to try and make it into an ethical issue - it's simple conflicts of interests. Two guys want the same girl (who only wants one guy...) - one guy is going to go away empty handed (or hauled off in an ambulance/police car). The two parties have conflicting goals that will predictably lead to conflict. In the cases where the perceived value is great enough - this will lead to violence - and when large groups of people are involved - wars. It's nothing new, and nothing that we will ever "evolve" out of. As technology improves, we find ourselves fighting over basic needs and materials far less than we have in the past.

Now - what is worrying about the "call everything a terrorist" trend is that it can easily be manipulated. Remember - the government isn't unified, there are many different people and groups working to many different ends. The middle-school kid bringing a bottle of mercury into class gets labeled a terrorists. The person throwing books at the president gets labeled a terrorist (not really - but they could have). Eventually it can be extended to "those who disagree with the administration" (or other forms of political agendas) are terrorists. Militia groups are terrorists - Town hall meetings are terrorists - etc.

It's the whole fundamentally flawed idea of deploying static defenses to stave off a dynamic threat. It's the Maginot Line (which was merely circumvented and made irrelevant). You can scan people all day with metal detectors and pat-down 15-year old girls all you want to, someone's underwear will explode - then you attempt to rectify that (strip-search all of those 15 year old girls) and then someone's hip replacement explodes - then what are you going to do? You may as well just stop allowing people to fly planes (then trucks start exploding).

You can't combat an enemy who has all the time in the world to sit there and analyze your defenses and simply skirt around them; at least not by building more walls and check-points to be slipped around. You have to have a dynamic response - such as people on those planes trained to spot suspicious activity and react to problem scenarios. Effectiveness of preventative measures is difficult to ascertain (it doesn't appear necessary when it works, but you can't say a lack of accidents proves the effectiveness of a system that cannot be tested through the scientific method, either), but dynamic responses are often far more practical and effective in dealing with a dynamic threat.

However, I doubt that will come about. Whether pursued consciously, or not - a lot of power rests in the belief that static regulation (restrictions of freedom) is an appropriate response to a perceived threat. So, while some groups in the government may not be looking to gain from it - they will certainly not oppose the increased dependency upon them. Of course - it could be establishing precedents that will come back around to bite us all in the rear.

reply to post by Aim64C

Eventually it can be extended to "those who disagree with the administration" (or other forms of political agendas) are terrorists. Militia groups are terrorists - Town hall meetings are terrorists - etc.

That is the line (IMO) that is being toed with and slightly stepped over right now by our government. The slow but steady trend towards this is disturbing.

As for the rest, I know the government is mostly everyday people trying to get by and then lots of other interests, but its clear there are powerful groups in control of our foreign policy (therefore also controlling domestic policy) and monetary policy. The same groups that support certain dictators worldwide if they help them gain control of a country or exploit it (usually both). The fact that we do have a reactionary mindset when it comes to 'homeland security' means that this same group can engineer events to create the desired outcome: greater population control.

A word is powerful, the Bible talks about the power of words and so do Occultists. A word can define something in a very real way. What we've seen is a change from the words Freedom Fighter, to Insurgent, and then to Terrorist. Each term has described the same people in the same situation but has defined these people in very different ways.

If you want to see how differently we viewed the Afghani "terrorists" about 20 years ago just watch Rambo 3. In this film Rambo travels to Afghanistan to help the "freedom fighters" defeat the "Communist Invaders". These freedom fighters were funded in part by our government to help undermine the Communist forces that were there. These same freedom fighters are the ones we blamed for 9/11 and the ones we have been fighting since invading Afghanistan.

Before the word terrorism became an everyday thing for most of us, it was defined as first meaning a system of government. Conveniently this definition has changed in recent dictionaries.

budget.net...

reply to post by Ranko Kohime


Thanks for bringing that to my attention. It is rather obvious that government is more dangerous to freedom than anything else, except ourselves. Today's supposed "terrorists" could never take away any freedoms, to think so would be a mistake, and a twisting of perception I am incapable of.