posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 07:24 PM
I am reminded of the pesticide commercial for Blag Flag: "Kills bugs dead". A death is a death and one killing cannot be more deadly than another.
This is the implication of the title alone. If it is terrorism, and of course the ever expanding definition of what terrorism is leads to all sorts
of concerns, but if we simply go by the lexicographer's definition of terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of
intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
We still have a problem in a poorly defined concept. What separates Hitler's use of force and violence against people and property with the
intention of coercing societies and government because of an ideological and political reason from Al Queda? What separates The United States use of
force and violence against people and property with the intention of coercing societies and government because of an ideological and political reason
in light of the Korean conflict, the Vietnamese conflict, various adventures prior to 9-11 and after 9-11 in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would the word
Prior to 9-11 the term terrorism was generally accepted to mean those acts of war used against civilian populations instead of direct head to head
confrontations with the military of those populations to instill terror in the populace. The strategy behind it was to compel a population to demand
of its own government more security to protect them from isolated terrorist attacks. Of course, this strategy is implemented with the understanding
or prediction that no amount of extra security can stop terrorist attacks, and a vicious cycle of more demands for more security piled upon one
another until the people have effectively demanded iron fist tyranny. Once that iron fist tyranny has reared its ugly head, it will ultimately be
that populace that rises up against the tyranny they created and overthrowing that government, the terrorists have finally attained their endgame.
Attacking police officers is not genuinely an attack on civilian population. Not that I'm excusing this, I am speaking to the expanded definition
and understanding of what terrorism is. The PLO, which found so much sympathy by the very same news mediums that now ask you to buy their new
definitions of terrorism, was not attacking police and other government personnel, they were hijacking planes and bombing the buildings where innocent
civilians were - which was justified by the very same main stream media that asks you to believe that terrorism is something different today - in
order to instill terror in the innocent.
Now who is truly attempting to instill terror in the innocents? Right wing extremists such as "freemen", or a status quo, which very much includes
CNN and the main stream media, hell bent on their own agenda?