" Conveniently missing in the literature of terrorism, however, is a new meaning of the term: A premeditated attack on civilians, carried out by their own government, usually in the form of a false flag operation, in order to, out of fear, persuade them to accept measures that would be otherwise unacceptable."

Terrorism? What Terrorism?

Servando Gonzales

Since the fateful 9/11 events, the subject of terrorism has been ever present both in the mouths of the politicians and the mainstream press. Strong words come almost every day from the White House and the Hill condemning terrorist attacks all around the world and the killing of innocent civilians.

Nevertheless, like in most things related to politics, there is more than meets the eye in the terrorism fad. First of all, everybody is talking about terrorism, but nobody seems to know, or even care about what terrorism is.

Apparently, the definition most members of the U.S. government and the mainstream media have in mind is that terrorism is the result of acts committed by terrorists, and terrorists are the ones who commit terrorist acts — a typical circular definition.

Moreover, it seems that the current definition of the term used by the American government, and repeated over and over by the sycophantic mainstream press, is that terrorism is any attack against the globalist Mafia that controls the U.S. government, while any attack by the same Mafia in defense of its interests is, by principle, not terrorism.

The use for such a cynical definition of the term “terrorism” may seem justified to some people, first, because we are good, and any attack against us has to be by force an action by the bad guys, and therefore it must be a terrorist attack.

The corollary of such reasoning is that, for the same reason that we are good and our enemies are bad, any action against them is morally right, and cannot be termed terrorism.

In Alice’s Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty’s words mean what he want them to mean.

However, despite what Alice and Bill Clinton (it depends on what the meaning of the word is is!) may think, in the real world words must have precise meanings we cannot arbitrarily twist to satisfy the ideological or political needs of the moment.

A practical consideration against the use of a relativist definition of terrorism is that the other guys, the ones we consider bad, most likely consider themselves the good guys, so, if they use the same definition of the term as the one we use, there will never be a common ground for reaching, if not a peaceful agreement, at least civilized rules of engagement.

Even more dangerous is the fact that, once we leave in the hands of our government the definition of who is a terrorist and who is not, one day the very same CFR Mafia that controls the U.S. government is going to include us into that definition. Actually, they already are doing just that.

Proof of this is the Senate Bill 3081, also called the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman, both of them secret agents of the dreaded Council on Foreign Relations.

According to this law, any American citizen the U.S. government declared an enemy belligerent or a terrorist threat (what in totalitarian countries is called “enemy of the state”), can be indefinitely detained, interrogated, and prosecuted by the U.S. military. And this can apply to any U.S. citizen, “without being charged with a crime, without being read a Miranda warning, without trial, without access to their 5th and 6th Amendment rights and without their rights under Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution,” but just based on suspected terrorist activity.

Who, after being declared an enemy belligerent, will be indefinitely detained, interrogated, and prosecuted? Whoever the government, without any supporting proof, will declare an enemy belligerent. That may include you and me. Consequently, a clear definition of the term “terrorism” is very important for our own survival.

What Can Properly Be Termed Terrorism?

The current literature on the subject shows several definitions of terrorism, but the most widely accepted definition of the term runs like this: Terrorism: A premeditated attack on civilians aimed at terrorizing them with the purpose of pressuring them into asking their government to take measures that ultimately would benefit the terrorists.

Conveniently missing in the literature of terrorism, however, is a new meaning of the term: A premeditated attack on civilians, carried out by their own government, usually in the form of a false flag operation, in order to, out of fear, persuade them to accept measures that would be otherwise unacceptable.

Nevertheless, a key point in both definitions is that terrorism is an attack on civilians, that is, non-combatants. Therefore, by definition, an attack on combatants should never be called terrorism properly. That definition of terrorism leaves out of the picture, i.e., the attack on the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1983. Why? Because when people join the armed forces, they know that they will always be fair game for their country’s enemies. As the saying goes, that comes with the territory.

One of the purposes of sudden, unexpected violent attacks in war is to terrorize the opposing army into surrendering without a fight. That was the main purpose of the Nazis’ blitzkrieg or lightning war. Normally, however, you cannot terrorize an army, because a terrorized army is nothing but a poorly trained army.

Proof of this is that when the Wermacht invaded Poland, a unit of the Polish cavalry charged with their sabers raised against the Panzer tanks. As expected, they died in their attempt, but they died as heroes, not as terrorized rabbits.

History shows that, contrary to civilians, well-trained armies are not easily terrorized. Even when faced with a strong enemy attack by superior forces and, after taking heavy casualties, they are forced to retire to fall back positions, they do it in a calm, orderly fashion, just to regroup their forces for a counterattack. Consequently, calling terrorism any attack against military personnel cannot be properly termed terrorism.

A clear example of what has been wrongly termed terrorist action was the attack in 2000 on the USS Cole, a destroyer protected by heavy-caliber cannons, missiles and machine guns. You may call it an action of asymmetric warfare, or the result of the enormous incompetence of its captain, but not terrorism.

In other times, the least that could have happened to the captain of the ship is that he would have been court martialed, stripped out of his rank, and kicked out of the Navy. Of course, this did not happen because he had specific orders from the high command to keep his ship unprotected by disarming the sailors standing guard. Why? You may reach your own conclusions.

On the other hand, if we accept the above definition of terrorism as actions whose goal is to terrorize the civilian population, we can very easily reach the conclusion that the United States as a nation has systematically engaged in terrorism.

The military assault on civilians in Waco, Texas in 1993 is a recent example, but Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman terrorizing the South during the War Between the States is probably one of the best examples of terrorism in American history.

The destruction by firebombs of Dresden, Hamburg, Bremen, Rostock and other German cities during WWII, actions planned in cold blood at the Tavistock Institute in London, were typical terrorist actions whose goal was to terrorize the civilian population.

In addition, the firebombing of Tokyo and the dropping of atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki[1] were clear acts of terrorism. Nagasaki, where no military installation was located, was the site of the largest Christian community in Japan.

I am not condemning the use of the bombings per se. What I am saying is that the bombs were dropped on open cities, with mostly civilian, non-combatant population, with the only intent of terrorizing them in order to create pressure on their government to surrender.

In contrast, the huge factories of the I.G. Farben, closely linked to the interests of the Wall Street bankers and oil magnates that were doing business with the Nazis, were left untouched, despite of the fact that they were vital to the German war industry.

Of course, in the case of the atomic bombs, there is a valid argument that the bombs were necessary because, by helping to convince the Japanese government to surrender, they saved innumerable American lives — and even some Japanese ones.

Nevertheless, apart from the fact that the Japanese had already decided to surrender before the bombs were dropped, there is an ethical problem with accepting this argument, because it implicitly accepts that sometimes terrorism is justified — specifically when you are the terrorist.

History shows that terrorism, usually in its low-tech form, is the weapon of choice of the underdog. Americans forget that the patriots who forged this country, at some time in their struggle for freedom were called terrorists by the British.

Big nations, the ones that usually condemn low-tech terrorism, usually practice high-tech terrorism — just remember the U.S. attack on Qadaffi some years ago —, while small nations or political groups practice low-tech terrorism while condemning high-tech terrorism. It is therefore unfair to consider terrorism just the actions carried out with low-teach means, like car-bombs, suicide-bombers, etc.

The whole event we call the Cold War was nothing but an act of global terrorism, with both the United States and the Soviet Union keeping the civilian population of their opponents under the threat of nuclear annihilation. Nobody, however, ever called Robert McNamara, one of the architects of the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy, a terrorist.

Moreover, something rings false in the U.S. government’s statements against terrorism since the strange events of September 11, 2001. Contrary to all claims to the contrary, the United States has never issued a public statement not only condemning terrorism after giving a definition of it, but also asserting in clear terms that the United States will never engage, for any reason whatsoever, in acts of terrorism.

Even more disturbing is the fact that in late 2002 it became known that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mentioned his plan for the creation of an organization called Proactive, Preemptive Operations Group (P2OG). The P2OG’s main purpose is to prod indecisive or reluctant terrorists into committing terrorist actions — even if these actions cost American lives.[2]

In these perilous times when there is a wide gap between what politicians say and what they do, I suspend my judgment.

Who Are the Terrorists?

Currently, American citizens are under a concerted terrorist attack by their own government.

Paradoxically, the organizations carrying out these terrorist actions are the very same allegedly created to protect us from terrorism: the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. What is the main goal of the government terrorists carrying out these terrorist attacks?

To terrorize the American people into accepting the losing of freedoms protected by the Constitution as a previous step to the full implementation of the totalitarian communo-fascist nightmare the Council on Foreign Relations conspirators call the New World Order.

Even more dangerous is the act that, as evidenced in official documents produced by the DHS, the U.S. government is fully convinced that we the people are the terrorists. Just recently, Vice President Joe Biden (CFR) and Representative Mike Doyle accused Tea Party members of being terrorists.[3]

Evidently, the definition of terrorist they have in mind is anybody who opposes the action of the CFR conspirators who control the U.S. government.

Further proof of this is a Department of Homeland Security video that not only creates the terrorizing impression that terrorists are everywhere, but that those portrayed as terrorists are stereotypical American whites while the antiterrorist ‘patriots’ who report them to DHS are from other races or ethnic groups.

This openly racist video is a central part of a brainwashing campaign, “See Something, Say Something,” encouraging dark-skinned citizens to spy on their white neighbors and report any “suspicious activity.”

This is a carbon copy of the Nazi blockwarts and Castro’s Committees to Defend the Revolution: city block informers reporting imagined anti-government activities which, according to the video, could be as diverse as using a video camera, complaining about government surveillance, wearing hoodies, driving vans, talking to police officers, using a cell phone recording application, or making notes on a piece of paper.

However, we would make a big mistake if we blame the Obama administration for this assault on our freedom. Actually, the effort to paint average middle class, white Americans as terrorists began during the Bush administration.

A Department of Homeland Security Report titled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” dated April 7 2009 worried some Americans. Though the Report was never classified as secret, it is obvious that it was not intended for public consumption.[4]

The Report warned members of the DHS against the possibility of violence by “right-wing extremists,” who were identified as people concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion rights, and the loss of U.S. sovereignty. Moreover, it singled out returning war veterans, that is, people who have risked their lives under the belief that they were defending their country, as particular threats to their homeland.

According to the Report, worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and

… the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.[5].

This Homeland Security Report was actually a sort of follow up on a previous Report by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. It linked conservative groups, such as followers of presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, the so-called patriot movement, and people who oppose the North American Union and the New World Order, to domestic terrorism.[6] It is not a coincidence that the Missouri IAC Report was compiled with the assistance of the Department of Homeland Security.

The evidence indicates that we Americans are living under a terrorist state that sees us as terrorists.

This is a very dangerous. History shows that when this has happened in other countries the next step has been sending the “terrorists” to concentration camps — which, by the way, already exist and are ready to be populated.

Link:
http://theintelhub.com/2011/08/15/terrorism-what-terrorism/